Retribution

[font=Arial]I guess it depends how much work I've got and how urgent it is. Assuming I can afford to relax for a night, I'd probably watch a bit of TV while smoking hookah with friends. This generally puts me to sleep, and if it doesn't, I'm certainly not in any shape to work at full capacity. If I just need a quick break from soul-crushing labor, I'll take a walk, get something to eat/drink, or surf the web for an hour or two. I try to stay away from the internet because a quick visit to OB/Facebook always turns into a multi-hour Wikipedia/Youtube session, a ridiculous waste of time. But I find laying down to be the most relaxing of all, even if I'm not particularly tired.[/font]

[quote name='MistressRoxie'][color=#9933ff]Wow! Retribution is full of awesome advice. Thank you so much!! *hugs* You should start some sort of column... giving advice to dorks on concepts and activities grasped by the majority of society. ...Or something. I really appreciate all your advice and suggestions. ^^[/color][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Thanks! Just wanted to help out someone who wanted to tryout nightlife. I'm not really certain if this is known by most people, but it's commonplace in college. Have fun, be safe, let us know how it went. :)[/font]

[quote name='MistressRoxie'][color=#9933ff]So um... what's it like? The whole scene/ atmosphere, the music? What types of clubs have you been to and how are they different? (Or similar.) And what do you [i]wear[/i] to a club? (That last one completely has me confounded.) Was it fun, or not to your taste? Good/bad stories?[/color][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I'm not a seasoned club veteran in NYC, but I can at least give you some helpful advice/information. There are different types of clubs, both in classiness (there's upscale, dodgy, and everything in between) and scene. Broadly speaking, most clubs are 21+, but there are a few 18+ ones out there. For classy, upscale, expensive clubs, there's a cover charge (price of just getting in) of approx $50+. The drinks can be anywhere from $10 to $40. Buying a bottle of champagne or something is usually in the triple digits. Reserving a table is also in the triple (occasionally quadruple) digits -- if you have a table at a high-end club, you're massively important, rich, or both. For average clubs, which I'd expect you to go to, the cover ranges anywhere from $10 to $25, but ladies can usually get in free before a certain time (usually 11 or midnight). The drinks there are around $5 to $20, depending on if they have a special or you're ordering a complex drink. For shady clubs, the cover is usually around the same as an average club, the drinks are dirt cheap, and you feel generally uncomfortable/unsafe being there. Steer clear! :) Being a woman affords you great advantage at clubs. You get priority when getting in; usually a bouncer will look past a terrible fake ID if you're a cute girl, guys buy you drinks, and you can get in the club free a lot of times. But unfortunately, clubs strive to maintain a 2:1 girl-to-guy ratio, so you might have trouble finding a nice guy. Music varies from place to place. Generally speaking it'll be something like rap (whatever rap you've heard on the radio, it'll be in a club). Guys grind on willing girls to this for hours on end. There are also a fair number of techno/house/electronica playing clubs as well. The dancing is more free-moving and liberating, but there's also plenty of grinding at these. Rarely will you find a club playing rock/metal/acoustic/etc. Club attire for men: - Collared shirt - Decent pants/jeans ... nothing torn up or old looking - No sneakers ... usually dress shoes, loafers, boots, etc Club attire for women: - Short dress or average-to-short length skirt (just nothing long and dragging, you will regret it) - Or, alternatively, tight jeans - No sneakers ... a favorite amongst girls is heels - Girls generally wear darker colors to clubs, at least in NYC I guess the best way to sum up the attire would be "dressy-casual". Sometimes guys will put on a blazer and loosened tie to make themselves look sharp. Final word of advice is to go with a group of friends. Make sure there are more girls than guys in the party, it will make life easier. A group not only ensures that you will have a few people to talk to if it gets boring/awkward, it ensures your safety when in the company of total strangers. Good luck, enjoy it. Take along someone who's done it before, it'll save you stress.[/font]

[font=Arial]Wow. Just... wow.[/font]

[quote name='Elf_Of_Light']I'm doing an assignment for school on publicity, and I would like to have your opinion on it. Are you for or against of publicity? What are, in your opinion, the good traits/advantages of publicity and what are the bad traits/disadvantages of it. Do you think publicity is full of nonsense or do you think it can be useful/helpful. Please post constructive answers. Thank you. ^^[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I'm confused with your question -- I don't understand why someone would be for or against attention given to someone or something by the media. I think your definition of the word is potentially problematic. In and of itself, publicity is neither a good nor bad thing; I'm certain we all agree that 'attention' at large cannot be definitively assigned to be inherently "good" or "bad". The question is so vague it's difficult to answer. The easy way out would be to say "it has good and bad qualities to it". It could be argued that media attention was a driving force of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. It could also be argued that media coverage supports and perpetuates societal ignorance by only covering stories with no real national significance (small-scale murders, robberies, odd factoids) instead of politics or community based information.[/font]

[quote name='Raiha']As a loony bin conservative, I'm currently amused at the way the party's tearing itself apart at the seams.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Let's not act like the Republican party is unified though. I've lost count of the number of conservatives saying "I will not vote for McCain" and things of the sort. He's just not popular within the GOP... it seems the party as a whole has been stricken by a widespread discontent with all candidates. [QUOTE]Explain to me please just HOW he'll provide cheaper higher education. I have yet to hear a real plan come from him. So far it's just rhetorical feel good speak. "It's time to mean what we say and say what we mean."[/QUOTE] You're not looking hard enough. People assume Obama is all talk and no platform, but that's only because he's such an excellent orator. Check out the website, folks. [url]http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/#higher-education[/url][/font]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Well if a girl wants to wait, I can respect that. Since I'm categorically incapable. Who cares if it's 'the in thing' in society right now? And if you're going into a relationship expecting sex? That's not exactly polite now is it.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]If you make it known to the girl prior to "getting into a relationship" that you want sex, I think it's perfectly reasonable if she accepts that and goes out with you. If she wants to wait, and one of your criteria for a relationship is to have sex, then you probably shouldn't go out with her.[/font]

[quote name='MoyakuKeramushe']Some things are censored to avoid 'offending' people. Even offensive material is knowledge. The very fact that it is potent enough to offend means you have something to learn from it. If you did not, you would simply blow it off as inconsequential (sp?) and move on.[/quote] [font=Arial]This is untrue. Take, for example, a picture of a black person being lynched with the caption "LOL PWN". Such a picture would be extremely racist and offensive to a broad range of people, [i]but what do they have to learn from it[/i]? Offensive material is, in and of itself, not necessarily "knowledge" or intended to convey a meaningful message. In the aforementioned example, the offended parties would already have knowledge of these events occurring in the past, and thus their reaction would be based off of that legacy. Please understand that censorship, while not bulletproof or without its own pitfalls, should certainly be used in select instances where the content is not suitable for the environment (and yes, I'm aware this is a relativistic judgment).[/font]

[quote name='MaskedRider']Obviously finding a woman attractive helps, and I know that this may seem wrong, but I expect a physical part of the relationship as well. I understand a girl wanting to wait, but I'm 20 years old and in this day and age it's pretty much expected in an adult relationship. Wow... I sound kind of like an ***.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]No, you sound pretty normal to me. In a relationship, I look for someone I enjoy spending time with. Someone I enjoy talking to. Someone I don't feel self-conscious in front of. Someone who appreciates the things I am interested in (politics, modern art, travel). Ideally, a girl who possess a comparable level of intelligence. And, of course, there simply must be a physical attraction. Even if she's got the perfect personality in my book, if she doesn't look good to me, we're not getting into a relationship. But I have no doubt we'd be extremely good friends. Speaking of friends, I prefer that we have slightly overlapping interests, but for the most part our own separate fields of study. Life gets boring when you only hang out with one type of people. So long as they are talkative (at least around me) and enjoy making [good] jokes, it should be smooth sailin'.[/font]

[quote name='The Mask']I'm a Filipino, and I can never vote for any U.S. Presidential candidate. But I support the candidacy of [B]Ron Paul[/B] because he has an extensive background on the issues, respects the Constitution, and has a tremendous amount of integrity. Also, he'll stop the Iraq war and fix the economy. That is why it always makes me depressed to see Mr. Paul not winning a single state in the recent primaries, caucuses, and convention. I always keep on wondering why people would choose Huckabee the religion-user, and McCain the war-lover. (PLEASE REMEMBER THIS: MCCAIN SAID THAT HE'S WILLING TO LET THE U.S. STAY IN IRAQ EVEN FOR 100 YEARS! A VOTE FOR MCCAIN MEANS THAT U.S. CITIZENS WILL LET THE NEXT GENERATION FIGHT A WAR THAT THEY DIDN'T CREATE! THINK ABOUT YOUR CHILDREN, DAMMIT!) Plus, much of the mainstream U.S. media is providing little and biased coverage of Ron Paul. Seeing all of these things happen just make me heartbroken. I see an honest, intelligent, and peace-loving leader in Ron Paul, and it breaks my heart to see a great man like him not getting the nomination because many citizens are too lazy to actually see behind the facade of the mainstream media. If Paul really won't get the nomination, then I'll support the Democratic nominee. I don't want a religion-user copycat to be a powerful world leader, and even more for a war-lover who's willing to turn make today's children tomorrow's Iraq soldiers. At least Obama and Clinton will provide some positive change. 'Till then, I will continue supporting Ron Paul, especially with the Freedom March under way. My support is not only for a better USA but also for a better Philippines (which is getting affected by the economic recession that --- take note --- Ron Paul had predicted before and is very much ready to beat if given a chance) and a better world.[/QUOTE] [font=arial][url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=7884Z6-FiMY][b]This[/b][/url] is all I can muster in response...[/font]

[font=Arial]Generally speaking the reaction to modded people is of mild interest, but more so of general distaste. Is this right? No. But you have to understand why people think it's bizarre and bad-looking. Humans gravitate towards that which they are most familiar with. They like what they consider "natural" and "normal". A tattoo is not the societal standard, nor is it natural, and as a result, people will think it's strange/weird/bad. People with massively gauged ears deviate from the norm (at least within western culture) and will be judged as outsiders. In the workplace, I would say it's reasonable to request people to cover up tattoos/piercings. When you work a job, you become a representative for a company -- an entity larger than yourself, and as such you should conform to the image they're looking to present. You wouldn't wear jeans and a t-shirt on Wall Street, and it's the same general principle regarding tattoos. Either way, though, it's simply not alright to discriminate against the modded. To call them criminal or evil or bad is ridiculously blind and foolish, imho.[/font]

[font=Arial]When I first logged in, I was like "...What the hell?" Have the night of your life, Rach. ;D[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]I'm gonna call "eeeeegnhhh" on that one, too. See, microevolution as I understand it deals with the survival of the most fit genetic information already present. Macroevolution deals with survival of the [I]addition[/I] of new genetic information, or information that wasn't already present.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I fear your "eeeegnhhh" might be a groan in vain... It's generally agreed upon within the scientific community that macroevolution is microevolution with greater scale and time. To be honest, the distinction between micro and macro is arbitrary... it's my understanding that most scientists view the two happen in the same way for the same reasons. By and large it's a distinction created to quarantine full belief in evolution. If there did exist a divide between micro and macro, that would mean creationists would be able to admit to the observable and obvious, but not forfeit their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, there really isn't much of a divide. Some google-fu with "microevolution macroevolution" will yield pretty much uniform result.[/font]

[quote name='sakurasuka'][SIZE="1"][FONT="Arial"]I still stand by my argument that there is simply no irrefutable proof of either creation of evolution.[/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Right, but that doesn't mean drawing viable conclusions from a massive amount of collected data is impossible and inherently erroneous. I won't play semantics, but nothing in science can be "proven" just supported or not supported. We haven't observed the phenomena of macroevolution, but if the vast majority of our information is pointing us towards it, why should we outright dismiss the entire thing? I also think those who are unwilling to "believe in" evolution don't take into account the fact that [i]macroevolution is only microevolution over a very long span of time.[/i] If you support microevolution, the foot is already in the door for the rest of it.[/font]

[font=Arial]I'll be voting for Obama. I support the vast majority of his points of view and past judgments in relation to public policy. I see his vote against the Iraq war as perhaps the most indicative of his political character. In a time when opposing the war was unpopular and demagogued by both sides as "un-American," he stood by what he felt was right. This not only shows a surprising degree of foresight and lucidity, but a show of his will and independence. He didn't feel there was enough justification and stood by his guns. This aside, I'm tired of Hilary crying and getting votes. I'm tired of Bill acting like an upset parent at a kid sporting event yelling from the sidelines. I'm tired of their distortions of Obama's record and their underhanded politics. I mean I support the Clinton legacy of the 90s, but I truly despise their approach to this election.[/font]

[quote name='AzureWolf']I understand that they have some basis, but you have to understand that these "qualified scientists" are just a modern version of church figures. Their word holds more weight just like "enlightened people" did in the past. Hwang Woo-suk managed to fake his whole data, be accepted by everyone and the "great rigor and strenuousness" of the scientific community gave him the green. Hell, if he didn't come forth BY HIMSELF, we'd still be singing praises of him.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]People think they hold more weight because they have the scientific method to back their claims. Like I said, their claims and findings are generally more rigorous and intensive and comprehensive than untested conjecture and arbitrary philosophy. [QUOTE]If we didn't question anything in the name of science, we'd still have the fiasco that was Alchemy. Sure, it's not "the bible said it," but is EXACTLY like "the Pope said it."[/QUOTE] Science by its nature is critical and so to accept its findings without further review, for the majority of the population, is the only viable option. Honestly no one has time to read over all the experimental data and draw their own conclusions. [QUOTE]Actually, I have. Maybe not MINE per say, but the brain's physical properties and processes, and yes, I not only read how they found this stuff out, but I'm REQUIRED to know. I guess "the magic" of neuroscience goes away when you do know, because honestly, it's not all that impressive - or conclusive for that matter. I won't go into the fiasco that was Phrenology either.[/QUOTE] This is missing the point. My point is that you aren't scientifically omniscient and thus there are gaps in your intensive knowledge. This means that you [i]must[/i] on some level trust science. Perhaps you don't know astrophysics. Perhaps you don't know chemistry. [quote]I know not every person needs to know or has time to know, but if they accept something as unquestioning fact when it is indeed "just a thought," you have to wonder if there's even a point of being an "independent thinker" if you are just going to modernize blind faith. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with blind faith, but if you're going to have blind faith, don't pretend it's something else just to be hip and different.[/quote] I mean certainly, I'm speaking of acceptance that both acknowledges science's fallibility but also its strengths in explaining the universe. I'm not trying to argue that science is never wrong, only that its view of the universe is relatively intensive.[/font]

[quote name='AzureWolf']And just so you know, the so-called "independent thinkers" merely follow the religion of science: whatever is said in the name of science is believed without question to them. Because "studies show" or "some study of which I understand and know no details of" were done. As a person who is forced to actually read and digest this BS, I am astonished at how ignorant this generation is. It's worse than those who blindly follow religion, seriously.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]People who lend their trust to the "religion of science" are making sound assumptions about the nature of science and the community's consensus. They assume that scientists have examined the phenomena in question with great rigor and strenuousness, and because of this their words carry more weight. They assume that these scientists are far more qualified to speak on the topic, and that they probably know more than a person who reads in a book "God made it" and believes it. The fact of the matter is scientific investigation is far more rigorous than that of untested belief, and as a result believing in the "religion of science" is far more relevant than believing "the bible said it". I mean, you've never researched in-depth (I assume) your brain's physical properties and processes; you've never read the studies and original findings and decided for yourself. So instead you assume that what neuroscientists say is probably closest to what is "right". Humans just operate that way, and to call it ignorant doesn't make much sense. About "they could probably both be wrong" ... I don't see how this is relevant. I mean certainly, all our conceptions of physics and science could be totally wrong, [i]but it's the best we have[/i]. The fact is evolution has been studied, and there is a ridiculous volume of research and data on the subject documenting it. Intelligent design and/or creationism, on the other hand, is untested theory and holds about as much credence as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you want to believe and chalk it up to "a matter of faith," I've got absolutely no problem with it. But to attempt to level science and belief on the basis of "science could be wrong" seems shortsighted to me.[/font]

[quote name='8bit'][FONT="Tahoma"][COLOR="DimGray"]Man, why do you guys all hate dating so much? O_o[/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]SRSLY I mean personally, I think there's multiple definitions to the term "date". The first would be just a one-on-one outing with someone, usually to a meal/walk/movie/etc and the understanding that there could potentially be something romantic/physical there. The second would be a slightly more exclusive shebang where the two are more or less consistently seeing each other. Either way, though, it's great fun. Sure, there's some anxiety you need to overcome in order to enjoy it, but on the whole it's awsm.[/font]

[quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"][spoiler]Words can be affluent?[/spoiler][/font][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Of course dahling. For instance, the word "prosperous" is most certainly living large. Bad jokes aside, I don't have many talents to be honest. I'm good at making people laugh (at least in person). I'd also like to think I have at least above average analytical and writing abilities. Oh, and I can blow some pretty hardcore smoke rings.[/font]

[quote name='Neuvoxraiha']But as far as the economic and ethical questions go? I'm a die hard free market capitalist. And Retribution, although cute, is totally wrong about how they pay sweat shops less than other sweat shops.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]This statement is simply uninformed. Even a cursory google search for something as simple as "wal-mart sweatshops" yields an overabundance of information. I mean, here's a [url=http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html][b]throwaway example[/b][/url] of Wal-Marts terrible business practices. I encourage you to read the page, specifically the link to the chart at the very bottom of the page. [QUOTE]That and I think companies should be allowed to do what they want. Government regulation: Higher prices for stuff. Government getting out of our noses: Abuses on occasion, but generally better for everyone involved.[/QUOTE] Industrial Revolution redux, ne1?? lol[/font]

[font=Arial]My big qualm with Wal-Mart is its low prices. Yes, you heard me. You want to know how they get their prices so low? Paying the sweatshop workers less than normal so they can minimize losses. There is workplace intimidation, and they primarily hire women and children so that it's easier to physically discourage unionization and workplace rebellion. I mean long story short, they're wage-slaves to the company. I'm well aware that almost all major companies use sweatshops, but Wal-Mart has arguably the most abysmal conditions for its workers.[/font]

[quote name='Lia']What isn't New York City known for?[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Amen to that. I'm getting back in tomorrow...[/font]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud'][color=indigo]Ah, well if that is the scenario, I wouldn't be surprised if Friend A isn't just jealous of the relationship between Friend B and her boyfriend. It is typical for a friend to become jealous in this scenario and then attempt to mask that jealousy with suspicion and even outright contempt towards the new party. There is a psychological term fir this behavior but it escapes me.[/color][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Aw, man, please remember the term! This describes my situation perfectly with my last girlfriend. One of my good friends (girl) became extremely distrustful of my girlfriend and insinuated that she was a sneaky and hurtful person behind her smiles. It got really annoying.[/font]

[quote name='DeathKnight'][color=crimson]New people become old people. Some old people leave. Life carries on.[/color][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]The sage hath spoken, end of thread.[/font]

[quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"] CNN has projected Hilary as the winner!! This is exciting... but not all the college towns have reported, I wonder if Obama's surge will overtake Hilary's numbers. [b]edit[/b]: And [i]NYT[/i]! It's legit now. lol[/font][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Unfortunately, there was no surge to come from Hanover. I'm truly surprised Hillary did so well against Obama in New Hampshire, especially when all the polling gave him a ~10% lead. I'll be frank with everyone and assume this was due to doubts with his lack of extensive experience, and perhaps his race as well. But I'd say the race truly begins now. Both Clinton and Obama have one in their pocket. If I had to make a guess, I'd say Hillary gets Nevada and Obama gets South Carolina.[/font]