[quote]pushharder wrote:
What Push is notorious for, BE, is not letting assholes off the hook.
[/quote]
Wait, what difference is there between this and the whole “dragging around old luggage” thing?
I mean, based on what Pat wrote, aren’t they one and the same?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
What Push is notorious for, BE, is not letting assholes off the hook.
You sure you want in the pool on this one?
Funny you dragged old luggage into a thread and whined about a post decrying old luggage carrying. Smacks of hypocrisy, eh?
You might want to shuffle on out now.[/quote]
I never claimed not to drag around my old luggage so it wouldn’t be hypocritical. Pat was the one lamenting the good old days, painting the two of you as the last of a dying breed of gentleman debaters which you aren’t. Was this your way of asking me if I want a piece of you?
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The Russians depended and protected their world image. The Iranians don’t give a damn. They use image to achieve a certain goal, when reached, they do vile shit and then when they need something they act somewhat nice again.
Further the Russians cared if they died, the Iranians don’t. MAD isn’t as much of a deterrent to Iran, also.
[/quote]
Can you support any of these claims by pointing to things that were done or said by actual Iranians?
Specifically, the parts where you claim the Iranians don’t care that they die and that they don’t care about their image.[/quote]
I posted an article about the Iranian belief of the coming of the 12th Imam and you dismissed it because it talked about their former president, though the same religious leaders still rule in Iran today.
In any regard read this and make up your own mind.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
What Push is notorious for, BE, is not letting assholes off the hook.
You sure you want in the pool on this one?
Funny you dragged old luggage into a thread and whined about a post decrying old luggage carrying. Smacks of hypocrisy, eh?
You might want to shuffle on out now.[/quote]
I never claimed not to drag around my old luggage so it wouldn’t be hypocritical. Pat was the one lamenting the good old days, painting the two of you as the last of a dying breed of gentleman debaters which you aren’t. Was this your way of asking me if I want a piece of you?[/quote]
Sure, sounds good now that you mention it. Do you?
Or is this the last we’ll here from you while you’re “hear to learn something?” You are the typical drive-by shooter in PWI, BE. Stop by, fart and then leave. THAT is your luggage. Never seen you engage in any meaningful debate.[/quote]
Well then you must have a short memory. Any further false assumptions you’d like to make?
Edit: Although, it is kind of amusing how worked up you seem to have gotten over my pointing out that you bring up what other members have said in the past and in other posts. My point was more that Pat’s statement was falsely nostalgic.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I posted an article about the Iranian belief of the coming of the 12th Imam and you dismissed it because it talked about their former president, though the same religious leaders still rule in Iran today.[/quote]
No, the article you posted talked about Ahmadinejad’s beliefs and how it could dangerously affect Iranian policy, particularly their nuclear ambitions.
If you’re taking what Ahmadinejad personally believes and applying that to the entirety of Iran, then there’s no way you can disagree with the premise that whatever Obama personally believes applies to the entirety of the U.S.
After all, both Obama and Ahmadinejad are elected as Presidents.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Hey, Push, this has been fun but I gotta call it quits for tonight.
Hurry up and get your ass over to Japan so we can eat huge quantities of meat, ogle cute Japanese girls, and not talk about Politics and World Issues at all.[/quote]
Isn’t meat in Japan super expensive? I would like to try my hand as some blow-fish sashimi. Definitely cannot get that in America.[/quote]
Some meat is. If you’re talking genuine, beer-mash-fed, massaged cows from Kobe or Matsuzaka, then yeah, that goes for about a hundred to two hundred dollars per kilogram. And it’s worth it.
On the other hand, the increasing popularity of all things Korean here in Japan, coupled with a boom in South Korean tourism in Japan, has spawned a huge number of yakiniku (Korean-Style barbecue) restaurants, where the meat is plentiful and affordable. There are high-budget and low-budget places, as with anything, but my favorite place is a chain called Gyu-kaku (which also has branches in the United States, though I don’t know about Georgia), where for about 45 dollars you can have all you can eat of about 100 different items (beef, pork, chicken, vegetables, soups, salads, etc), plus all the beer, wine, whisky/Korean vodka cocktails or soft drinks as you can drink. It’s become my Saturday post-deadlift habit, and in fact I’m going there tonight…right after deadlifts.
Fugu is…an experience. You wouldn’t want to try eating it in the States, unless it was prepared by a Japanese chef who had obtained a license to prepare it in Japan. One small miscalculation in selection of flesh can result in paralysis, coma and death. I’ve had fugu, and while it really doesn’t taste that special, compared to other species of fish, it’s the risk of death that adds flavor to the dish. Even the non lethal parts that they serve have a small dose of the toxin, and after a few bites you will definitely feel your lips and tongue go a bit numb.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Raise your hand if you doubt Iran is going to get a bomb. I think them getting a bomb is a foregone conclusion. My problem with the administration is that they are arrogant enough to believe they can simply talk them out of it like reasonable people. Iran ain’t reasonable. They’d get a bomb regardless. It just should be made as hard a process as possible. [/quote]
I won’t raise my hand, because I agree with your premise: if Iran is convinced that they need nuclear weapons, and they have the funds and the technology to develop or obtain them, then they will have nuclear weapons. Just like Israel.
Now, if you had said, “raise your hand if you’re not worried about Iran having nuclear weapons”, then up my hand would go. Yeah, they’re Moozlums, and yeah, they sometimes say unkind things about Murica, and yeah, they have had unsavory friends throughout the years. But I remain unconvinced that this translates into a clear and present danger to the United States.
Listen, I live less than three hundred miles from the North Korean border. The North Koreans actually have nuclear weapons, and they actually have delivery systems that could rain nuclear fire down on top of my head if they wanted to, AND they have a legitimate, seething hatred for the country in which I live. You want to talk about insane? Kim Jong Un is as crazy as a mountain of guano.
Do you know how worried I am about a North Korean nuclear attack on Japan, which is several orders of magnitude more likely than an Iranian nuclear attack on the U.S. mainland?
Not at all.
A probability that is orders of magnitude higher than an infinitesimal probability is not worth worrying about, and anyway, as Axl Rose once put it, “worryin’s a waste of my time”.[/quote]
I am not really worried about them directly targeting the U.S. Israel seems more realistic. And I am more worried about the ensuing arms race in the ME and a powder keg with more potent powder. I thing large scale war is imminent, with nukes it becomes a much more worrisome proposition.
It’s the raised stakes that worry me. It’s frighteningly biblical.[/quote]
It’s only “frighteningly biblical” because one of the protagonists happens to have been in the Bible. If it were India and Pakistan we were talking about, a democratic, nuclear-armed country bordered by a country full of Muslims who hate it enough to illegally obtain nuclear weapons as a deterrent against possible aggression over a contested piece of land (Kashmir), we would shrug, because the thought of a bunch of Indians getting incinerated in a mushroom cloud somehow just doesn’t tug on our heartstrings as much as the thought of it being a bunch of Israelis.
And let’s be honest here. Are we really making such a fuss because we’re worried that our friends the Israelis (who by the way have enough nuclear weapons to reduce every major population centre in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia to ash) might get hurt, or could it be because a nuclear-armed Iran might be a smidge more complicated to deal with when it comes time to effect “regime change” and strategic “liberation” of the second-largest petroleum reserve in the world?
EDIT: Actually, both of the protagonists were in the Bible. The Persians, of course, being the best friends the Israelites ever had. [/quote]
It was a metaphor. Nothing to get excited about or serious. The use of the term ‘biblical’ in this context means simply ‘very dangerous’ or ‘very frightening’ in a way that is or was somewhat predictable.
I wasn’t trying to invite a diatribe against religion. Sure, if everybody in the world thinks the same way, be it a particular religion or an atheism, then we all get along better because we all agree. 7 billion people in the world, there will never be agreement.[/quote]
Not sure what in my post above could be construed as a diatribe against religion. Just musing that a lot of people in America may feel a bit warmer and fuzzier toward the people of Israel than they would toward, say, the people of India, because they were brought up reading the Pentateuch in Sunday School rather than the Bhagavad Gita. Any showdown in Israel inevitably brings to mind the end-time prophesies in the Book of Revelation, so perhaps I may be forgiven for assuming that that’s what you were alluding to when you said that a nuclear arms-race in the Middle East, the only other contestant thus far in the race being Israel, was “frighteningly biblical”.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
No, I consider the religions themselves pretty equivalent in intrinsic “dangerousness”.
[/quote]
Monumentally, Pittttbulllishly ignorant.
Sorry, pal. I’m not giving you a pass. This is plain dumb. And I know you’re smart enough to know it’s dumb.
[/quote]
Because the old respectful etiquette of of not dragging personal beefs from thread to thread is apparently dead. What you say one time may be brought up forever and ever so long as it suites the purpose of tearing an individual down, rather than forwarding a current discussion. Let’s face it, the good ol’ days of being able to have a heated discussion in one place and have it remain there and not dragged like old luggage from thread to thread is gone. The thoughtful respectful people who were capable of that have left. Pretty much, you and I are left of the old guard. Why are we still here? Hell, I don’t know I still like it. It’s just different now.
I have been involved in several forums in life, this is still one of the best.
Digital assholes are everywhere. [/quote]
Not sure what to make of this, Pat. Are you including me in the group of “digital assholes” that drag their “personal beefs like luggage from thread to thread?”
Hope not, because in all the time I’ve been posting on PWI (and it’s been a while), I think I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of posters whom I have insulted or leveled personal attacks against. Karado, certainly, Confusion I suppose could be included. Zeppelin, just because I can’t stand his fucking avatar. I don’t know whether to count Sifu or not because I only ever called his argument stupid, not him himself. As for push, well, we’re buddies, and the abuse we heap on each other is 99.99 percent in fun. In other words , we don’ meeeeeeean nuthin’ by it. At least, I don’t.
Of course, there are those who perceive a criticism against the practices or beliefs of a specific religion, or religion in general, as an attack on their own personal faith and on them personally, although I cannot imagine you, a Roman Catholic and a generally clever and thick-skinned individual, getting offended on Pat Robertson’s behalf, unless you feel an affinity with the man because he shares a first name with you.
In any case, as one who considers himself to be one of the thoughtful, respectful members of PWI, I do apologise if I’ve offended you somehow. It was not my intent.
[quote]pat wrote:
It doesn’t matter much if your superstition is based on religion, or anti-religion. People are capable of incredible evil.[/quote]
I agree wholeheartedly. Which is what I meant when I said that I considered Fundamentalist Islam and Fundamentalist Christianity about equivalent in their intrinsic dangerousness.
If one believes absurdity (whether or not the absurdity centers around God), then while it is not guaranteed that one will commit atrocity, it does make atrocity easier to justify.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Hey, Push, this has been fun but I gotta call it quits for tonight.
Hurry up and get your ass over to Japan so we can eat huge quantities of meat, ogle cute Japanese girls, and not talk about Politics and World Issues at all.[/quote]
I’m trying.
One problem: GF (airline employee from whence I had my frequent flying abilities enhanced) had a severe shoulder injury on the job and is not eligible for rehire (and the accompanying flight benefits) until full recovery. That’s a bit down the time line.[/quote]
Sorry to hear that. Hope she gets better soon.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
On the other hand, the increasing popularity of all things Korean here in Japan, coupled with a boom in South Korean tourism in Japan, has spawned a huge number of yakiniku (Korean-Style barbecue) restaurants, where the meat is plentiful and affordable. There are high-budget and low-budget places, as with anything, but my favorite place is a chain called Gyu-kaku (which also has branches in the United States, though I don’t know about Georgia), where for about 45 dollars you can have all you can eat of about 100 different items (beef, pork, chicken, vegetables, soups, salads, etc), plus all the beer, wine, whisky/Korean vodka cocktails or soft drinks as you can drink. It’s become my Saturday post-deadlift habit, and in fact I’m going there tonight…right after deadlifts.[/quote]
Just checked: the closest Gyu-kaku to you is in Miami.
Funny. Its more expensive there than here.
[quote]magick wrote:
If you’re taking what Ahmadinejad personally believes and applying that to the entirety of Iran, then there’s no way you can disagree with the premise that whatever Obama personally believes applies to the entirety of the U.S.
After all, both Obama and Ahmadinejad are elected as Presidents.[/quote]
I am talking about what Ahmadinejad personally believes, I am also talking about what the religious leaders of Iran believe. Are you saying the ex-president of Iran, a theocracy ruled by Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have different views on religion, Islam, and the Islamic Revolution? If so, please explain or link an article from which I can read about this. Show me an article about the Supreme Leader’s views on Islam and the world and how it differs from that of Ahmadinejad.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The Russians depended and protected their world image. The Iranians don’t give a damn. They use image to achieve a certain goal, when reached, they do vile shit and then when they need something they act somewhat nice again.
Further the Russians cared if they died, the Iranians don’t. MAD isn’t as much of a deterrent to Iran, also.
[/quote]
Can you support any of these claims by pointing to things that were done or said by actual Iranians?
Specifically, the parts where you claim the Iranians don’t care that they die and that they don’t care about their image.[/quote]
Nothing specific. Just observations between the old world order and new world order. Things based on articles and news reports I have read and seen over the years. I don’t have a specific source on the matter. World opinion mattered to the Soviets. Iranians say outlandish shit like “Israel must be destroyed” and “we aren’t afraid of death” and things like that in the world stage indicating that they aren’t afraid of the consequences.
I am sure I could do some research to back it up and I might, but not right now. I am not in the mood for research at the moment.
You are welcome to your own observations and opinions of course. This is not to be confused with making an argument. I am making an observation, not an argument.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Hey, Push, this has been fun but I gotta call it quits for tonight.
Hurry up and get your ass over to Japan so we can eat huge quantities of meat, ogle cute Japanese girls, and not talk about Politics and World Issues at all.[/quote]
Isn’t meat in Japan super expensive? I would like to try my hand as some blow-fish sashimi. Definitely cannot get that in America.[/quote]
Some meat is. If you’re talking genuine, beer-mash-fed, massaged cows from Kobe or Matsuzaka, then yeah, that goes for about a hundred to two hundred dollars per kilogram. And it’s worth it.
On the other hand, the increasing popularity of all things Korean here in Japan, coupled with a boom in South Korean tourism in Japan, has spawned a huge number of yakiniku (Korean-Style barbecue) restaurants, where the meat is plentiful and affordable. There are high-budget and low-budget places, as with anything, but my favorite place is a chain called Gyu-kaku (which also has branches in the United States, though I don’t know about Georgia), where for about 45 dollars you can have all you can eat of about 100 different items (beef, pork, chicken, vegetables, soups, salads, etc), plus all the beer, wine, whisky/Korean vodka cocktails or soft drinks as you can drink. It’s become my Saturday post-deadlift habit, and in fact I’m going there tonight…right after deadlifts.
Fugu is…an experience. You wouldn’t want to try eating it in the States, unless it was prepared by a Japanese chef who had obtained a license to prepare it in Japan. One small miscalculation in selection of flesh can result in paralysis, coma and death. I’ve had fugu, and while it really doesn’t taste that special, compared to other species of fish, it’s the risk of death that adds flavor to the dish. Even the non lethal parts that they serve have a small dose of the toxin, and after a few bites you will definitely feel your lips and tongue go a bit numb.[/quote]
Yeah, it’s the intrigue of eating Fugu. It’s one of those things I’d like to try once. And yes of course by a licensed chef trained to prepare it.
I guess I was going off of old information regarding the meat. There was a time where it was really expensive, even plain old meat.
There was a restaurant here who used to get Tasmanian beef flown in daily. Dante’s Down the Hatch. Sadly, it’s now closed. I loved that place.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I am talking about what Ahmadinejad personally believes, I am also talking about what the religious leaders of Iran believe. Are you saying the ex-president of Iran, a theocracy ruled by Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have different views on religion, Islam, and the Islamic Revolution? If so, please explain or link an article from which I can read about this. Show me an article about the Supreme Leader’s views on Islam and the world and how it differs from that of Ahmadinejad.
[/quote]
No. I am saying that if you plan on taking what the leaders of Iran believes and interpreting that as what the entirety of Iran believes, then you’ll have to stay logically consistent and say the same for the U.S.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
No, I consider the religions themselves pretty equivalent in intrinsic “dangerousness”.
[/quote]
Monumentally, Pittttbulllishly ignorant.
Sorry, pal. I’m not giving you a pass. This is plain dumb. And I know you’re smart enough to know it’s dumb.
[/quote]
Because the old respectful etiquette of of not dragging personal beefs from thread to thread is apparently dead. What you say one time may be brought up forever and ever so long as it suites the purpose of tearing an individual down, rather than forwarding a current discussion. Let’s face it, the good ol’ days of being able to have a heated discussion in one place and have it remain there and not dragged like old luggage from thread to thread is gone. The thoughtful respectful people who were capable of that have left. Pretty much, you and I are left of the old guard. Why are we still here? Hell, I don’t know I still like it. It’s just different now.
I have been involved in several forums in life, this is still one of the best.
Digital assholes are everywhere. [/quote]
Not sure what to make of this, Pat. Are you including me in the group of “digital assholes” that drag their “personal beefs like luggage from thread to thread?”
[/quote]
No. I think you are a good guy over all even if I disagree with you. I was speaking ‘in general’, I wasn’t singling a person out. I was commenting on a pattern of behavior. Nobody here is really innocent from having ‘moments’ myself included.
Oh geez, I hate his avatars too. And he replaces a bad one with a worse one. But the guy with the worst avatar in T-Nation history is BrownDisaster. It was so gross I couldn’t even look at it.
Actually, I didn’t have you in mind at all when I said what I said, but I stand by it. Like I said it’s a pattern of behavior that I noticed has changed over all. It used to be what you say in one thread, stays in that thread and a different thread would have it’s own things going on. It was kind of unwritten rule that people just followed. And in my opinion a much better MO than having to defend yourself repeatedly over things said in other threads or even a long time ago. To me, it seems that makes conversations unnecessarily hard the because you are defending yourself not only in argument at hand, but also for things said at sometime, a long time back.
To me it seems an ego thing. It’s attacking a person rather than an idea. It gets unnecessarily difficult and convoluted when things in the past are constantly drudged up, likely unrelated to the topic at hand.
I still try to follow this said unwritten rule. I am not saying it was perfect or nobody did it, etc. I am saying in general, it was much easier to talk about things without having to also constantly deal with old baggage at the same time.
I think these conversations can get heated and a good back and forth between participants should be able to occur without dredging up old baggage. It should be fun, one should not be insulted constantly for what they said a long time or somewhere else. After all, you can be better at some topics than others. Not being proficient in one circumstance does not mean you are not in another.