Brian Orakpo

[The True Adonis]

You are wrong. My mom went to college and my dad was well off and they learned the hard way and so did i. Me and my G/F have talked about children but i would not want them to get success the way that i did.  I was living in a million dollar house and then left to go to a $1200 apartment, big downer but i learned alot and much more then if i just got something handed to me. Now, i have two homes in Bradenton, Florida and one for my mother and one for me and i pay for her a nurse to be with her at all times. Life was hard and i loved every minute of it and would not take any of it back.

Ok I get it.  Your parents were extremely wealthy so there was never a threat of ending up in a homeless shelter.

This "hard living" was all a sham and you knew it to be as such since you were never at immediate risk for danger.

With that said, I find people with this mentality a HUGE burden to the people who actually NEED the assistance.  Parents, who could have afforded to pay for their children and then don`t, force the children to seek assistance or take loans unnessecarily thus shrinking the pool for the TRULY needy, all because the parent wants to prove some pointless and phony lesson.

You , yourself admitted to having many scholarships where school is paid for.  THAT should be for the poor who cannot afford college. NOT YOU. Your parents could afford it.  This is truly sickening to the less fortunate who do lack the familial backing to send their child to college.

It makes me sick to think how many truly needy people are unable to get the assistance or jobs they need, all because some well to do, douchebag parent wants to teach their child a lesson when they do not have to.

[Doug_Steele]

Ok I get it.  Your parents were extremely wealthy so there was never a threat of ending up in a homeless shelter.

This "hard living" was all a sham and you knew it to be as such since you were never at immediate risk for danger.

With that said, I find people with this mentality a HUGE burden to the people who actually NEED the assistance.  Parents, who could have afforded to pay for their children and then don`t, force the children to seek assistance or take loans unnessecarily thus shrinking the pool for the TRULY needy, all because the parent wants to prove some pointless and phony lesson.

You , yourself admitted to having many scholarships where school is paid for.  THAT should be for the poor who cannot afford college. NOT YOU. Your parents could afford it.

It makes me sick to think how many truly needy people are unable to get the assistance or jobs they need, all because some well to do, douchebag parent wants to teach their child a lesson when they do not have to.

Greenville, S.C. is not the ghetto you dunce! My knees were done at the age of 18 and i could no longer play football and i went to Greenville Tech for one year, transferred to Clemson and then finished out at MICHIGAN for my final two years. I paid for everything and i am still paying for student loans. Why in the hell would i wanted my parents to pay for college? I was a man and i am a man.

[The True Adonis]

Greenville, S.C. is not the ghetto you dunce! My knees were done at the age of 18 and i could no longer play football and i went to Greenville Tech for one year, transferred to Clemson and then finished out at MICHIGAN for my final two years. I paid for everything and i am still paying for student loans. Why in the hell would i wanted my parents to pay for college? I was a man and i am a man.

You are contributing to driving up the inflationary costs for ALL students by accepting loans when your parents could have paid for them.  You are taking money from families who TRULY need it as they have no familial wealth to send their children to school. You are saddling yourself with debt which forces you to pay interest thus expanding the Academic Industrial Complex that shackles the average person looking to go to college.  You are creating a false demand for loans which in turn boosts inflation.


There is no correlation of "being a man" and being saddled with debt.  There is nothing "manly" or "noble" by bragging that you have unnessecary debt to pay.

[Doug_Steele]

You are contributing to driving up the inflationary costs for ALL students by accepting loans when your parents could have paid for them.  You are taking money from families who TRULY need it as they have no familial wealth to send their children to school. You are saddling yourself with debt which forces you to pay interest thus expanding the Academic Industrial Complex that shackles the average person looking to go to college.  You are creating a false demand for loans which in turn boosts inflation.


There is no correlation of "being a man" and being saddled with debt.  There is nothing "manly" or "noble" by bragging that you have unnessecary debt to pay.

So, my parents should have just paid for everything? I think that i would rather have taking the loans that i paid back pretty quick and i almost have my last paid loan off. My mom had/has cancer and i would rather her have the treatments done and she had no insurance. I was 18 and i think that i did it it the right way. Go drive some Bentleys or something. I would never have taking anything from anybody. I am saddled with debt....i love my Beacon score. I just shed a tear for you 

[The True Adonis]

So, my parents should have just paid for everything? I think that i would rather have taking the loans that i paid back pretty quick and i almost have my last paid loan off. My mom had/has cancer and i would rather her have the treatments done and she had no insurance. I was 18 and i think that i did it it the right way. Go drive some Bentleys or something. I would never have taking anything from anybody. I am saddled with debt....i love my Beacon score. I just shed a tear for you 

I shed a tear for your mother because she did not have Universal Healthcare.

[Doug_Steele]

I shed a tear for your mother because she did not have Universal Healthcare.

Good luck on your fight against everyone in the NFL and fighting the cough obesity problem in the NFL. I hope everyone in life gives you everything and you never have to earn anything...I really do

[donthate1]

On shit for sure!! Approx. 80-90 percent of NFL players are on shit.  Why would this canadian be any different?

[polychronopolous]

On shit for sure!! Approx. 80-90 percent of NFL players are on shit.  Why would this canadian be any different?

 

lol "canadian"

Are you in the resturaunt industry per chance?

[The Coach]

Based on body index, 56% of NFL players are obese


By Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY
A new study finds what may seem obvious to even casual observers: Many National Football League players are obese.
But the scope of the problem may be more serious than fans realize. Researchers using the standard measure of excess weight conclude that more than half of the NFL players are dangerously heavy.

The NFL disputes these findings. And some fitness and medical experts say the study is flawed because it only uses body mass index (BMI), a height and weight ratio that does not consider muscle vs. fat.

The study of 2,168 NFL players, ages 21 to 44, by researchers at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill adds to mounting evidence that some football players are paying a steep price in health and longevity.

Researchers analyzed the players' BMI in a study that appears in today's Journal of the American Medical Association. The findings include:

56% of players qualify as obese, roughly 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight.

About 26% of football players qualify as severely obese, and 3% are morbidly obese.

The researchers made no correlation between team rankings and the players' weight in the 2003-04 season, the study period. But the Arizona Cardinals had the highest average BMI and the worst record in their division.

"You can look at some of these players and see they are not all muscle. There is excess fat there," says lead researcher Joyce Harp, an associate professor of nutrition and medicine.

Counters NFL spokesman Greg Aiello: "We do not comment on medical research that we consider substandard. This is not a serious medical study."

He says the league has appointed a medical panel to study players' cardiovascular health. "It's a part of an ongoing priority to protect the health and safety of our players."

Fitness researcher Steven Blair, president of the Cooper Institute in Dallas, says BMI alone is not a valid measure when applied to NFL players. "These guys are muscular. They weigh a lot, and they have high BMIs, but we cannot conclude that this is the same as obesity."
The National Institutes of Health's obesity guidelines say that very muscular people may have a BMI placing them in an overweight category when they are not actually fat.

Still, some professional football players are indeed too heavy, says Mackie Shilstone, director of health and fitness for the Ochsner Clinic Foundation in New Orleans. He has helped evaluate the physical condition of more than 300 NFL players.

"You cannot just look at the BMI of these players. You must look at total-percent body fat and waist measurement, because abdominal obesity is the biggest risk to a man.

"The players who are at greatest risk for heart disease, diabetes and stroke are the offensive and defensive linemen," Shilstone says. "They are the walking dead; they just don't know it. And they need to do something about it."

The new study builds on earlier research indicating that players are vulnerable to sleep apnea, a disorder that causes people to stop breathing while sleeping.

Excess weight is a major contributor to sleep apnea and is considered a possible factor in last year's death of former footballer Reggie White, who played at weights topping 290 pounds. Obesity increases the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes.

TA, you put more spin on shit when your wrong more so than CNN and 240. Read again and note the highlighted. Then you have one genius in the article saying "you can tell by looking at them" what an idiot.

So in short, owners who put out millions in salaries are going to risk having an "obese" person having a heart attack on the field. Another lib with zero commonsense.

Who are the tested players? By insurance standards all bodybuilders would be considered "obese".

[luvvsuNOT]

TA, are you a Pacifist? If so, why do you feel it is a superior moral position? If not, why do you denigrate and ridicule any expression of natural and inherent male aggression even if it's channeled in what most, though apparentlly not you, consider a positive outlet? This includes not only football players but say, MMA fighters and even our soldiers whose primarily purpose is to defend this country which means to kill people and destroy things. 

[The True Adonis]

TA, are you a Pacifist? If so, why do you feel it is a superior moral position? If not, why do you denigrate and ridicule any expression of natural and inherent male aggression even if it's channeled in what most, though apparentlly not you, consider a positive outlet? This includes not only football players but say, MMA fighters and even our soldiers whose primarily purpose is to defend this country which means to kill people and destroy things. 

I am a pacifist and yes I believe it to be a superior position to aggression.

[luvvsuNOT]

I am a pacifist and yes I believe it to be a superior position to aggression.

Now just to be clear and that we are talking about the same thing, I consider a pacifist as one who believes that the use of violence and aggression is always wrong. Of course, most believe that if a dispute can be resolved in a non-violent manner that is superior than resorting to aggression. But in the real world, where we do have violent and ruthless people, is violence ever justified? What do we do with a person or a nation that wants to kill and destroy you? 

[The True Adonis]

Now just to be clear and that we are talking about the same thing, I consider a pacifist as one who believes that the use of violence and aggression is always wrong. Of course, most believe that if a dispute can be resolved in a non-violent manner that is superior than resorting to aggression. But in the real world, where we do have violent and ruthless people, is violence ever justified? What do we do with a person or a nation that wants to kill and destroy you? 

Give me a "real-world" example and not a hypothetical and I will tell you how I would respond.

[luvvsuNOT]

Give me a "real-world" example and not a hypothetical and I will tell you how I would respond.

How would you have responded to Nazi Fascism or Japanese Imperialism? How would you stop the SS from rounding up Jews and taking them to concentration camps? Say, you are on one of your walks and you happen to notice that the lovely Jezebelle is being ganged raped. How would you respond?

[The True Adonis]

How would you have responded to Nazi Fascism or Japanese Imperialism? How would you stop the SS from rounding up Jews and taking them to concentration camps? Say, you are on one of your walks and you happen to notice that the lovely Jezebelle is being ganged raped. How would you respond?

In that case, force is justified.

[luvvsuNOT]

In that case, force is justified.

So, at least as I understand it, you are not a Pacifist. A Pacifist is one who believes that all violence and aggression is wrong, such in the case of Ghandi who advocated surrendering to the Nazis. You believe, if I understand you correctly, is that given the choice peaceful resolutions always trumps violent ones. I believe this is the position of the majority. Of course, where one draws the line and resorts to violence may vary widely.

In Ghandi's case his Pacifism worked fairly well against the British as they were an inherently decent society. Pacifism against the Nazis would have led to a far different world.

[The True Adonis]

So, at least as I understand it, you are not a Pacifist. A Pacifist is one who believes that all violence and aggression is wrong, such in the case of Ghandi who advocated surrendering to the Nazis. You believe, if I understand you correctly, is that given the choice peaceful resolutions always trumps violent ones. I believe this is the position of the majority. Of course, where one draws the line and resorts to violence may vary widely.

In Ghandi's case his Pacifism worked fairly well against the British as they were an inherently decent society. Pacifism against the Nazis would have led to a far different world.

Wrong.

You do not have to subscribe to absolutes to be a Pacifist, nor is it an all or nothing mentality.

Pacifism can just as easily be measured and determined by what constitutes the greater good and causes or uses the least aggressive tactics possible.

Pacifism does NOT have to be based on absolution.

[regmac]

Anyone going from Tx to the redkins is a fkn traiter!!!!!!!!!

[luvvsuNOT]

Wrong.

You do not have to subscribe to absolutes to be a Pacifist, nor is it an all or nothing mentality.

Pacifism can just as easily be measured and determined by what constitutes the greater good and causes or uses the least aggressive tactics possible.

Pacifism does NOT have to be based on absolution.

pacifist
pacifism definition
paci·fism (pas′ə fiz′əm)
noun

opposition to the use of force under any circumstances; specif., refusal for reasons of conscience to participate in war or any military action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what makes your Pacifism different from anybody else? Or the majority of the people that would rather have peaceful resolutions than violent ones?

[The True Adonis]

pacifist
pacifism definition
paci·fism (pas′ə fiz′əm)
noun

opposition to the use of force under any circumstances; specif., refusal for reasons of conscience to participate in war or any military action
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what makes your Pacifism different from anybody else? Or the majority of the people that would rather have peaceful resolutions than violent ones?

Dictionaries are not written in stone, nor do they have a one-size fits all, Universal application.  A dictionary is not an absolute either and is constantly changing and evolving with our zeitgeist.

I will refer you to Steven Pinker and what he says on this subject as he sits on the board of a major dictionary. Please Watch- 

http://fora.tv/2008/09/12/Steven_Pinker_The_Stuff_of_Thought#chapter_09
I am sure I could just as easily find a different definition in another dictionary.

[body88]

Dictionaries are not written in stone, nor do they have a one-size fits all, Universal application.  A dictionary is not an absolute either and is constantly changing and evolving with our zeitgeist.

I will refer you to Steven Pinker and what he says on this subject as he sits on the board of a major dictionary. Please Watch- 

http://fora.tv/2008/09/12/Steven_Pinker_The_Stuff_of_Thought#chapter_09
I am sure I could just as easily find a different definition in another dictionary.

Adonis, what do you do for a living?

[luvvsuNOT]

You are quite right in regard to dictionary definitions. I used it as it is something you often do especially in regard to your google cut and paste. It's OK to use when it suits your arguments but not when it fails to correspond to the "changing and evolving zeitgeist" that may happen to be your flavor of the month.

When one defines Pacifism as say an opposition to war what does that mean? I take it to mean that one is oppose to war -- all war. Of course some may take that to mean that they oppose war except for the times when you have to fight them. You say pacifism, i.e., non violence, is superior to aggression. So do I, and so do most people, though most people don't consider themselves pacifist. How do we differ? Again, to repeat a previous question, how does your pacifism differ from what most people believe since you don't believe in force except when force is justified?

BTW, I'm at work and my responses may be haphazard.

[The True Adonis]

You are quite right in regard to dictionary definitions. I used it as it is something you often do especially in regard to your google cut and paste. It's OK to use when it suits your arguments but not when it fails to correspond to the "changing and evolving zeitgeist" that may happen to be your flavor of the month.

When one defines Pacifism as say an opposition to war what does that mean? I take it to mean that one is oppose to war -- all war. Of course some may take that to mean that they oppose war except for the times when you have to fight them. You say pacifism, i.e., non violence, is superior to aggression. So do I, and so do most people, though most people don't consider themselves pacifist. How do we differ? Again, to repeat a previous question, how does your pacifism differ from what most people believe since you don't believe in force except when force is justified?

BTW, I'm at work and my responses may be haphazard.

1. I have never relied on a dictionary as an absolute.  I have a few hundred posts here regarding Neology and Neologisms, which I promote and which I am highly interested in.  If I use a dictionary, it is simply as a basis and not an absolute or it is in jest or satire.  I think you realize this or at least I hope you now do.  Perhaps, if I do it again, I shall make a disclaimer, although I would rather have leave it to your own interpretation as to TRULY recognize irony or satire, one must have an epiphany on their own for the total effect. Although, one can be taught it most certainly.  Tell me if you would like a disclaimer from now on, and I will try and work them in as I see fit.

2. Pacifism is not an absolute as I have noted earlier.  My pacifism may differ from your pacifism and the only way to know if that is the case is to provide real examples or hypotheticals.  When we find one where we disagree on the use or the level of force, you will then have a clear view of just how and why we would differ.  Since Pacifism is not an absolute, it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain or define it in absolute terms.

2.

[luvvsuNOT]

I notice that you become quite heated and sarcastic when you are challenged.

Why do you assume I considered a dictionary definition absolute?

Since you consider Pacifism (and from other posts of yours that I've read this seems to include most terms and idealogies) highly elastic and subject to whatever interpretation that suits you best then all becomes meaningless and is just whatever you want it to be. That explains your moral relativism. No real absolute right or wrong. It just depends. What ever the UN decides. It's all good, eh?

[The True Adonis]

I notice that you become quite heated and sarcastic when you are challenged.

Why do you assume I considered a dictionary definition absolute?

Since you consider Pacifism (and from other posts of yours that I've read this seems to include most terms and idealogies) highly elastic and subject to whatever interpretation that suits you best then all becomes meaningless and is just whatever you want it to be. That explains your moral relativism. No real absolute right or wrong. It just depends. What ever the UN decides. It's all good, eh?

I am not assuming that you take a dictionary as absolute. You assumed that I did.

Morality is NEVER absolute and is comprised of many changing factors.  Just because there is no absolution, does not automatically render everything meaningless.  That is a leap in logic equivalent to scaling a mountain in one bound.

There are some areas we will agree on and some we surely will not.  If you want to classify me as anything (which YOU should not as I do not believe in absolute labels) you could classify me as a Democratic Socialist Pacifist Utilitarian.  See what I am getting at?  You, I and everyone else do not fall neatly in one category.  You may want people as pegs to fit neatly in their respective holes, but this is simply an impossibility and the minute you begin to do that, you put false limitations on the individual using your own bias based on whatever you view as the "correct" definition.

Why are you asking about the United Nations?