Quantcast

Jump to content


WharfRat

Member Since 03 Jun 2004
Offline Last Active Jun 17 2017 06:22 AM

#1627120 Significant Others~

Posted by WharfRat on 12 September 2012 - 06:42 PM

Maybe the s key is/was broken?

I like it when I don't have to explain myself. I refuse to use big words or anything technical for the very basis of making conversation easier. If I can to consistently repeat myself or rephrase what I am saying, it gets pretty annoying.

I also like it when he looks out for me. I'm a very caring person, and usually will help others at my own detriment, and so its nice that he has my back whenever I am putting myself on the line to help someone. I always know that I'll be alright because he is always there.

I also love more then anything spending our time cuddling on my bed watching tv and movies. We have seen pretty much everything worth seeing right now, but it doesn't bother us. We can quote hundreds of movies and tv shows by heart, and like to be randomly reminded of a show while we are out with friends, and the other finishes the quote that you start.




#1625030 Democratic National Convention

Posted by WharfRat on 05 September 2012 - 09:59 PM

Okay guys... so I didn't actually expect this to turn into some brawl over politics but rather over the general energy of the DNC and particularly to the speech that I linked to by San Antonio Mayor, Julian Castro. I'm not going to respond to everyone as a lot of it is just general party line bickering, but there were a few items I thought there may be a need to have addressed.

Spot on, Cript.

Majority of Obama voters vote on the basis of 2 things:
Is he'd still black? Ok he gets my vote.
Will I still get my welfare check? Yes? Ok he gets my vote.

Okay... So you're saying that the majority of the people who voted for Obama did so because either they are A) black or B) on welfare. I think that's a pretty bold claim that honestly reeks a bit of bigotry. Let's bring in the facts. Obama won 69,456,897 votes (52.9%) in 2008 vs John McCain's 59,934,814 votes. (45.7%). Obama won with more votes than any president in history has won with... Mind you, this is only counting the Americans who ACTUALLY voted.... 131 million people voted (about 61% of the population that has the right to vote.) [EDIT: I actually did 3 pages of math and statistics to prove my point here but it's getting convoluted so I'll simplify it...] Considering that turnout rate is lowest amongst minorities and those impoverished, clearly this is statistically inaccurate. You are truly coming off as a bigot when you make claims like the majority of voters vote only based upon if they get something for free or the color of the persons skin....

The most pathetic, pa-the-tic, thing I've waver heard was Obamas strategy in his 2008 presidential race, he sent out buses to the projects/ghettos so all the hood rats and their baby-daddies could go vote for him. Rides for Obama I think it was called. Fucking rediculous.

Okay... further offensive racially motivated remarks aside, this isn't something that is new to Obama... There have been activist groups who rally to "Get Out the Vote!" by providing a means of transportation for those that may otherwise be disenfranchised through poverty. This is not a single party issue... Both parties have been dong this, legally, for years. There are strict guidelines that guide what campaigns can and cannot due in order to sway voters or to encourage voters at the last minute... The Supreme Court has heard cases regarding these issues and they have been found constitutional!

Oh you forgot to mention that Obama took millions out of Medicare, which is failing as it is, to pay for his Obamacare. He left them with nothing more than and IOU in the knowledge it would never need to be paid back.

Umm... Obama actually found a way to save money in the system and now even more people are covered by Medicare than before he took office along with the millions of people my age (19-26) who can now be covered under their parents healthcare plan. [Yes, they do offer healthcare at my job. They want 25% of my salary to give me basic coverage... It's ridiculous and I'm very lucky that I can continue to have healthcare at an affordable rate now. ]

I'm not in favor of Romney any more than I am Obama, but I can't stand the bleeding heart mentality that enables trashy people to sit on their asses and pick up a check that leaches off people like my husband of whom works his ass off to earn.

I'd prefer a seasoned businessman over a story-telling lawyer any day.

I just had to quote this portion for the irony... (not calling you trashy... I try not to disparage people when at all possible...) I just think it seems ironic that you can't stand that people "sit on their asses" and "leaches" off of other people like your husband... Just out of curiosity, do you work for a living? Or are you one of those people who "leaches" off of your poor, over-worked husband?

Long point to all of this? I think it was filled with prejudicial rhetoric that is most definitely false....

I'll handle a few of the other out of line posts that I saw later... More on topic.... I thought Julian Castro actually gave a better speech than Clinton did tonight! Anyone agree?


P.s. (A.K.A. "Later")

Everyone has their reasons for the way they will vote. The older generations are from the brass balls stock - people who know what hard graft is. Younger generations have been handled with mittens and expect things to be handed to them on a silver platter. It's a matter of how you were raised, when you were raised, and your own interactions.

Spoiler


I do agree with Nymh, the entire system needs a reform, living in the here and now and utilizing laws that were set in place decades ago isn't constructive.
I agree with the introduction of drug testing welfare applicants, after all if I need to take one in order to keep my job why shouldn't they be required to take one in order to get assistance? I believe that it should be repeated every 8 weeks to those in receipt of benefits. Passing a pee test once shouldn't entitle you to a further 26 weeks of taxpayers money, abusers will just go spend that money on drugs.
I've been stopped in the grocery store many times by people trying to sell their EBT cards for cash, so they can go buy liquor/drugs/etc.

Again, there are steadfast reasons why I view things the way they I do. I'm sure there are steadfast reasons others here feel the way they do.

There have been several studies conducted regarding the efficiency of mandatory drug screenings for unemployment/welfare benefits and they have all came out to conclude that the cost is much greater than any potential savings. Drug screenings are fairly expensive... most drugs are completely out of your system after 2-3 days and there has to be a certain level of planning/coordinating to ensure drug tests are taken on time. Most people would just stop taking drugs 2-3 days before their scheduled test. (Obviously this doesn't include marijuana users.) The other problem with this approach is that it will end up hurting the children of mothers who may use drugs.

Regarding the EBT Cards/Food stamps I think this would be a little easier to manage... Make people show ID when they make their grocery purchases with their food stamps.

I have worked in grocery stores before and I promise I know how it feels to be making minimum wage and to not have any government assistance yet see people come in and use food stamps to buy steaks and lobsters... It's rather infuriating.... The only government assistance "welfare" program that I ever received was a grant to go to university for last year.... I no longer qualify at this time but that year of school would not have happened without the government assistance. Are there people who are abusing the system? Absolutely... But some people just believe that helping others is the right thing to do... That we can work out how to be more efficient with it as time comes along but we can't penalize those in need.

That's actually what I wanted this topic to be about... The 13 minute speech (that I don't know how many of you watched) given by Julian Castro. The speech was all about investing in American Prosperity through an investment in American businesses and in the American people through education. We are really lacking in our educational system and are falling through the global ranks. Wealth and strong military power only takes you so far over so long... Let's get back to the basics and ensure that our children/grandchildren can grow up in an America that still has jobs and still values things like innovation and invention... Science and Math and Art! Where people can follow their dreams and be productive members of society....

Anyways, I've rambled enough tonight... Perhaps another night!
Cheers!
Cody


#1617650 Why do people have sexually exclusive romantic relationships?

Posted by WharfRat on 16 August 2012 - 03:26 PM

Why should we set ourselves up in an arrangement that doesn't permit us to have fun with other people? What is wrong with me fucking other women, or my girl fucking other guys? What qualms should I have with it if it is something they enjoy and that I enjoy? Why do sexually exclusive relationships even exist?

It's mostly through tradition. Sexual promiscuity not only has been shunned for religious and cultural reasons for centuries, but think about it back then from a practical standpoint. What do you do when the girl your fucking has a kid and you're married? What does it do to the child/girls husband? Who raises the child? Yes, in our current society this is becoming more of the norm and somewhat of a "non-issue" but it still has presented a serious problem for polyamory in the past. Back in the day there were only two main methods of "birth control"; Abstinence and coitus interruptus (our in the parlance of our times "Pulling out.") As I'm sure you know this second option isn't very effective. It only made sense for people to shun away from polyamorous relationships from a logistical standpoint... (This doesn't even account for the religious and cultural reasons before it...)

Just thought I'd add a different perspective. (No interest in discussing the matter further.)
Cody


#1616919 Money = Happiness.

Posted by WharfRat on 14 August 2012 - 08:10 PM

this is exactly what is wrong with science.

You cannot take a study about an opinion and try to turn it into science. Unless you did with with every single human on earth, your results will never be accurate or correct.

Clearly you've never taken a class on elementary statistics or statistical methods or statistical analysis... In fact, there is an entire branch of applied mathematics that does just this! It's called a representative sample. I didn't bother to look at the study linked to as I don't really care about the money discussion. However, if you want to pick apart the study, I'd probably be interested to know how they measured the happiness of the individuals in giving vs. receiving.


#1616916 Consumerism is the highest stage of civilization (so far).

Posted by WharfRat on 14 August 2012 - 08:01 PM

So I long gave up the Debate section of codex as it is riddled with useless garbage. However, I saw a topic titled "Consumerism" and though "Oh my! Perhaps there is some intelligent discussion on the role of consumerism in modern western society." Then I read through this thread and remembered why I stay out of the debate forum...

A) Opening post was terrible. That's no way to start a debate about the subject you want to discuss. I'd personally love to discuss consumerism as it is an interesting topic but I have no real outlet as the originating post had no guidance nor direction.

B) Most responses to genuine topics in the debate forum are garbage. A vast majority of posts are full of logical fallacies and generally two people get suckered into arguing about the premise of the debate. (Which in this case, admittedly, was incredibly vague.)

C) I'm pretty sure you are being facetious in your original statement regarding how wonderful it is that citizens can now give meaning to their lives through physical possessions. If you are not, refer to point D.

D) Most people who actually respond in debate threads fit into one of a few categories. 1) Those that start threads/leave opinions and have no real understanding of the topic they are talking about. 2) Those who intentionally attempt to make an argument, knowing that they are fully incorrect, and try to twist it so that they can bait someone into an argument. (Example:iArgue) 3) Those that feel the need to let the people who are either in category 1 or category 2 know to stfu.

With that said... perhaps you could rephrase your original post to make it a little more clear to specifiy what you'd like to discuss. If you truly want to talk about how great and evolutionary this "stage of civilization" is for mankind, please count me out. I've not the time for trolls.

Thanks.
Cody


#1608828 Shooting in Aurora, Colorado

Posted by WharfRat on 22 July 2012 - 10:57 AM

Did you buy three automatic/semi automatic weapons in a single month period, and 6,000 rounds of ammo, as well as a bullet proof vest and a riot helmet?



James still would have been able to purchase that weapon then. Your concept for gun control wouldn't have saved these people's lives, and yet you applaud this as being what is needed.

Everyone wants to pretend as if they could have stopped a massacre from occurring... Hindsight is 20/20. If we are planning for the future we should make plans for the future and not a hypothetical plan to change all of our laws regarding firearms based upon a single incident. Also, the plan that I suggested very well may have stopped him if he had been prevented by a psychiatric evaluation. Sane people don't go into theaters and murder people...


#1608749 Shooting in Aurora, Colorado

Posted by WharfRat on 21 July 2012 - 08:40 PM

Wake up already and realize. THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT ALREADY SPIES ON YOU. REquests for data,m cell phone taps, and emails are at the highest that they have ever been and they continue to grow.

They should atleast make it worthwhile.

Just because something is already happening doesn't mean we should support it occurring....

I won't turn this thread into a debate with you over the government. However, I will respond to others regarding the state of mental health in the U.S. if others would like. :)

P.s. If people really want to have tougher laws in America regarding gun control then we should look at adding provisions to the Brady Act. I would support provisions that would implement essentially a license to own a firearm that is issued to any person who can pass a criminal background check, has no history of domestic violence recorded, passes a psychiatric evaluation, and takes a gun safety course. Are these measures rather stringent? Yes... However, this would help reduce accidental gun deaths in America and help ensure that those purchasing firearms are mentally stable.


#1602082 Post your mobile rigs

Posted by WharfRat on 01 July 2012 - 01:59 PM

Posted Image

I just wish i could figure out how to root it ;(

rootzwiki.com


#1594682 Remember "To Catch a Predator"?

Posted by WharfRat on 11 June 2012 - 06:54 AM

If they had the option, then that totally nullifies my argument. Why would they choose not to have their faces blurred? I don't think that's true.



The list isn't read out to people on TV.

They are probably offered a reduced sentence for participating in the show, tbh... Remember the television show "Cops?" Some criminals would ask to have their faces blurred and that was their right. Even with this TCAP show, you are completely bypassing the legal system. Innocent until proven guilty.... Unless they wait to air the footage until after a guilty verdict AND sentencing has been completed, they couldn't do this legitimately.

And yes, I too want to dissuade sexual predators from assaulting children. However, I also hold value in due process and believe in a citizen's rights to trial. I'd like to see how many of those "predators" that were caught were actually sentenced and how long of sentences that they received compared to other "predators" with similar offenses in their area.


#1594620 Remember "To Catch a Predator"?

Posted by WharfRat on 10 June 2012 - 09:14 PM

Given that they completely fucked over someone's life.

No.

So they do to jail for a few years and then get out? So what? The person that they did shit to will be suffering for their entire life. They will always have nightmares. They will always struggle with trust issues, and they will always always have to deal with unnecessary reactions because of this. Its not like they just stole some money, and that was it. They fucked over a person's life, and in that situation others peoples lives to because they now have to deal with this change.

I think that it's hardly enough what is done to them currently. They deserve much much much worse for how they affect other people's lives.

While I agree with you on the topic of sex offenders generally speaking, I disagree with regards to this television program. The people whose lives they are "harming" aren't children but paid sting agents. I don't really care about the humiliation part... (and to the OP, I'm almost certain that they all have the option of having their faces blurred or not...)


#1594331 The Super Inappropriate Jokes Thread

Posted by WharfRat on 09 June 2012 - 06:03 PM

I don't know too many good inappropriate jokes any more... (Now all I know are corny science and math jokes... :p)

But someone at work did tell me this one the other day so i guess I'll share.

Q: What's the difference in Jam and Jelly?
Spoiler



#1576898 Free courses offered by coursera and udacity in a variety of subjects

Posted by WharfRat on 22 April 2012 - 03:08 PM

I know I posted these years ago... but other good places are www.academicearth.org , MIT Opencoureware, and obviously www.khanacademy.org

Courses ranging in subjects from schools such as Yale, Harvard, MIT, etc are all on academic earth. MIT Opencourseware is strictly MIT courses... but they are awesome.

And Khanacademy is a fantastic project to offer free education to all online.


#1572440 Drug Testing at Work

Posted by WharfRat on 11 April 2012 - 08:23 PM

I'll go ahead and offer my opinion on the matter. (I know many of you know my back story, but for those that do not, I was previously addicted to cocaine, methamphetamine, alcohol, and benzodiazepines at various points in my life... They call it polysubstance dependency. I can promise you that I've done more drugs than you have ever even heard of. I've been sober (with the exception of the occasional drink) for around 2-3 years now and currently manage around 50 employees in a call center so I now work with the whole "how to handle drug users at work" - thing.)

Back story out of the way.... I feel that pre-employment drug screenings are an invasion of privacy and I feel that they should be illegal. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence in America? Instead, we are all presumed to be guilty of using drugs and must prove that we are not by submitting a urinalysis. I feel that you can gather as much necessary information regarding a potential employee based upon criminal records and the interview process as would be necessary to determine if someone will be fit for employment. (I know as I hire and fire people on a daily basis as our call center employs growing close to a thousand employees at this time.)

I have also had to deal with my representatives that I KNOW are drug users. Before being a manager, when I was simply a supervisor, I made sure that my team knew and understood that I am a huge believer in the school of thought that your personal time is just that. I do not care what you do on your personal time and it is none of my business what you do in your personal time. If you are suspected to be under the influence at work, you will be submitting a urinalysis that day or tendering your resignation. I have a zero tolerance policy for drug and/or alcohol use while on the job. I do not act on every suspicion, but if you have given me much more than reasonable doubt, you will be asked to submit a UA. These types of reasonable suspicions can only be determined through directly seeing, smelling, or hearing the individual using the substance. Too many other issues (such as anxiety or eating disorders) can give the employee the appearance of a drug user when it is really a psychological problem.

Some will argue that that burden of evidence is too great and that we need be stricter on employees who may be using drugs as it effects performance. This is a very simple thing to overcome. I make performance evaluations on a weekly basis. If you are performing poorly and do not make the necessary changes towards improvement, then I will fire you for that reason -- poor performance.

tl;dr -- Drug testing prior to employment is a violation of privacy and should not be used. Drug testing with a great deal of evidence to indicate drug use on the job is warranted. All other performance related deficiencies should be addressed as performance deficiencies and corrective actions up to and including termination should be implemented.

--Cody


#1554231 IQ Test

Posted by WharfRat on 09 February 2012 - 09:20 AM

Umm... Except this isn't a real IQ test....

Moreover, the scale even states that the standard deviation is 15, while an actual IQ test uses a deviation of 10....

With that said, I've taken an actual IQ test with a psychologist when I was 15 and scored a 117. (I lost the majority of my points on the spatial reasoning portion in which my score was like a 71....)

But yeah... this is highly inaccurate. If you're truly interested in your IQ, you'll need a real examination.


#1536634 Help me pick a phone.

Posted by WharfRat on 13 December 2011 - 12:10 AM

blahblahblah. This post has self destructed.