Bad Weight Lifting Techniques and Habits
Author: James
A lot of people fall into bad habits when they are weight training. There are a lot of issues that can arise, so my goal here is to only cover the major ones - that is, issues that will have a significant effect on your performance and muscle gain.
Incorrect exercise form is probably the most common problem there is. The main issue that a lot of people have is cheating, but some just do exercises completely wrong and end up injuring themselves. The best way to avoid this is to look over diagrams and videos or ask an experienced lifter for help with your technique. Some of the most common exercises that people do flat out wrong are the squat, deadlift, and seated rows. When doing squats, people will often incorrectly bend their backs, which'll greatly increase the risk of injury - the same goes for deadlifts. For rows, a lot of people seem to have an issue with leaning forward; your back is supposed to stay straight, as you should only be moving the cable with your arms. You'll be using the muscles in your back, but actually bending your back will cause injury and decrease the intensity.
Cheat reps are another thing I see people doing a lot in the gym. These are okay every once in a while, but you have to realize that you're not getting a full workout like that. You may actually be causing some muscular imbalance. The two most common exercises in which people cheat are standing curls (dumbbell or barbell) and the bench press. When doing curls, people tend to lean backward, granting themselves additional leverage with which they can move the weight. This is a good way to hurt your back or just not work your arms at all. You should not be moving your back; in fact, only your forearms should be moving. And with the bench press, I notice that a lot of people tend to only do half or quarter reps. Again, this can be useful sometimes, but it's generally a bad idea. Many will also arch their back, lift their legs up off the floor, or bounce the weight off their chest. All of these are bad, especially the middle one, as it can cause injury in the shoulder or back.
sneaker suggestion?
i need a pair of high-top (sneakers with ankle support. mainly basketball shoes) that are cheap and in style.
please tell me if you can find cheap jordans.
long lasting shoes wouldn’t be a bad factor either.
AIR FORCE ONES ARE SO PLAYED OUT! give me some alternatives please.
P.S.
i currently have a pair of converse weapons. they are really great shoes and have treated me very well. but they are at the end of their rope. they lasted me for 1.5 – 2 years!
Nike skateboarding shoes are good for basketball and chillin. And they are affordable. All different colors of hightops. http://www.nike.com/nikeskateboarding/v2/main.html
social life without the concept of fakery being bad?
i was just thinking about why it is emphasized so much that fakery is bad. what forces are keeping this topic so one sided? i think i know one factor, but i do not believe it is entirely to blame for this situation:
Since everyone is fake, and their fakeness is often apparent, it provides therapeutic feelings of superiority to the listeners of fakers. Without this mild feeling of superiority you get when you spot a faker, social life would be an unbearably envious and threatening thing. so, our consistent labelling of fakeness as bad is tied to our human emotional needs to feel superior, especially during social interaction. what do you think?
Eric: Everyone is affected by the perceptions of others, and so we almost constantly try to control the impressions we give off to others. Even when we are doing something to follow some principle, we are still being fake, because we adopted that principle thinking it would help us put on a convincing act if we ‘internalized’ these socially appropriate behaviours.
Glenn: how can human behaviour, which is deliberate, be real? Is “what you are” something that can even be expressed or conveyed through social interaction? No.
I don’t think everyone is fake. We have civil behavior that is an alliance of sorts; a compromise of behaviors in order to have a mutually beneficial encounter. But I don’t think that’s fake, necessarily….just compassionate to others.
It might not be how you act in private, but it’s still you…just a curbed, politer version of it. And there are those who are genuinely nice people and generous, happy souls who show you their inner self without any obstruction or perversion.
Is it really true that violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor?
One girl told him bluntly: “My mother says violence never solves anything.”
“So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you?”
They had tangled before – since you couldn’t flunk the course, it wasn’t necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, “You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!”
“You seem to be unaware of it,” he said grimly. “Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea – a practice I shall always follow. Anybody who clings to the historically untrue – and thoroughly immoral – doctrine that ‘violence never solves anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedom.”
Quoted from the excellent book, Starship Troopers, by Robert Heinlein.
What do you think? Is violence God’s primary tool for problem resolution?
Kicking a.s.s is the primary method of conflick resolution chosen by mankind.
An armed society is a polite society.
“Jubel Hershaw” you Heinlein fan you.
To current/former law enforcement- what factors and measures contribute towards a ‘clean’ police force?
There are no shortage of answerers who claim to be current or former law enforcement officers – I am especially interested in your answers.
What factors and measures do you think contribute towards a ‘clean’ police force?
By ‘clean’ I mean individually officers upholding the law fairly, not partaking in bribery, not partaking in corruption, not partaking in collusion or any forms of breaching the public trust.
I understand every force has its individual ‘bad apples’ but certainly some precincts/units would have a reputation for being ‘dirty’. What factors do you think is behind the culture of these groups?
First is a good quality background investigation. Dig deep as behavior past will reoccur.
Arm your people with the right tools for the job. Many use-of-force issues occur because there were no other viable options.
Teach supervisors how to supervise. Many law enforcement supervisors have never been in charge of another person. This is a type “A” job and these personalities clash and require training to understand leadership dynamics.
Spot check videos. If someone is barking at people on a simple traffic stop, without good cause, they may be capable of going to far when it counts. It is easy to get disgusted with people in this profession, but catching the signs early can make a big difference.
Ride alongs. People base “right and wrong” police procedures off what they see on television. There is a true lack of understanding and the more the community gets out there and sees what happens, the better they understand.
Did you feel it was wrong for the Bridgend suicides to be used in X factor?
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1047653/X-Factor-contestant-Bridgend-forced-talk-suicides-auditions.html
Well it seems it was a ploy ~ I must admit I found it in bad taste at the time.
Yes I did.
More trumped up personal tragedies.
Somebody I know auditioned and passed throuigh the first round. He was immediately probed to see what his “sad story” could be. He is recently divorced and was involved in a famous national disaster. He refused to discuss either despite the insistence of the crew.
Needless to say we won´t be seeing him on screen due to him refusing to exploit his own, or other people´s personal sadness.
Do people realize that both Obama and McCain are pushing for more government control of the economy (=bad)?
There are a number of dynamics which occur that are detrimental to both the people and the wealth of a nation under a controlled economic environment. The following are by no means all of these dynamics:
The more controls on an economy, the poorer the economy becomes. We need no better example than the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR. The Soviets had the most sophisticated planning agency ever devised, and quite publicly and solemnly pronounced their intention to carry out each “five year plan” for economic improvement of the nation. The planning bureaucracy, though, was never able to plan its way into economic growth and stability and the Soviet economy collapsed after a long period (marked by extreme shortages and acute suffering) of stagnation and decline.
A controlling factor cannot see into the future relative to progress on a wide scale. It can sometimes see disaster coming, however, when figures and statistics show a serious problem that will effect the economy. Since it cannot see into the future, particularly relative to progress, then decisions are flawed – even without realizing they are flawed. A good example is the pay telephone. Just at the leading edge of the cell phone coming into use, there were a number of Americans who invested heavily in pay telephones. Since they could not see the coming change in technology, they lost a lot of money. If this would have happened on the part of government, the pay phones would still be used and the cell phones discouraged for a variety of reasons. Not the least of them would be that government will always hamper innovation due to either heavy investment in the old, or simply because government cannot do anything without appointing a committee to study it. The slightest unforeseen variable can have a ripple effect on the economy.
For an economy to be controlled, it must of necessity be centralized control. There are problems with this on two levels besides that described in point two above. First, the results of decisions made by a centralized control affect all of the people; whereas, in a free society, mistakes usually only effect a few. Second, when mistakes are made in regulation, reversal of any decision takes time. Again, it is the committee concept and when you throw in the unwillingness of government authority to admit mistakes, the problems are compounded. In the case of an omnipotent state, they cannot admit mistakes since that will cause the people to question their wisdom, then their authority. The more powerful a government, the more that government fears a restless citizenry and the less likely it is to ever admit a mistake, or take remedial action.
Those who control the economy tend to become more equal than others. An elite grows. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Even in a communist state. In this case, the elite become the Party leaders. In a controlled society, those who would normally be the entrepreneurs in a free society realize that the only way to get ahead is to join the Party. In a semi-controlled environment, too many people realize the way to their heart’s desire is by going along to get along rather than rocking the boat. In a free economy, the enterprising individual uses his head to invent, innovate, and becoming an entrepreneur to achieve his desires. In the process, he provides better ways and means, better products, and jobs for his fellow citizens.
Due to point four above, a controlled economy ultimately shrinks. It cannot grow in the sense of providing growth for the population all across the board. Within the framework of freedom combined with growing controls, the rate of growth will be proportionate to the amount of control. Then, at some point, zero growth, and then a shrinking economy. Government or the controlling factor will never relinquish its grip. That iron grip of control will only continually tighten unless there is a large backlash by the people forcing the planners and controllers to relinquish their grasp.
http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/3712-real-solutions-for-the-economy
Obama/McCain Bailout Vote:
Obama (D-IL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14196.html
This is why I am voting for Ron Paul. Nice pointers.
Do you think it would be inappropriate for sisters to kiss in a book?
My book is about two sisters. I’ve based them loosely off Snow-White and Rose-Red, so they are extremely close and have not been parted or in danger ever in their life, and their story is loosely based of the Lady of Shalott, so they are extremely sheltered. But there are other, original things that happen in it, and this part that I’m telling you is not the climax, nor the central problem. It’s just a dilemma added to many others.
In my story the Snow-White like sister gets caught by a temporary bad guy and Rose-Red is forced to leave her because both of their guardians (they have very special powers and their guardians are in charge of keeping them alive, because there are forces that want them dead) drag her out to save themselves. But Rose-Red has to get her back and Snow-White’s guardian is honor and duty bound to not leave her there, and Rose-Red’s guardian has to go where she goes, so they all go back and save her. Snow-White is only gone for a few days out of a book that happens over months, but when the two sisters meet I was going to have them kiss on the lips. It feels right in my head for them to do it, but I’m not sure if it’d be inappropriate.
It would only be a peck, not sexual in the least, but still would it make you uncomfortable? Incest holds such a major ick factor for me in literature, which is why I could NOT read the Mortal Instruments Series after the first one, even though it was wonderful until that little unfortunate turn of events, and I want to know if this would turn you off from enjoying the rest of the book, or holding it in the same high regard as you would without it. Would it strengthen the image of their affection for one another, or would it creep you out?
Additional things that might influence your answer:
-Their names are not ACTUALLY Snow-White and Rose-Red, but for the purposes of this post I’m just calling them that for you.
-The book is a fantasy aimed at teenagers and older, and it is my first YA novel, as I usually write adult fantasy. Still it will be mature. The world they are in is not modern, but their clothes and customs and stuff will be centuries old for us. It wasn’t weird for people back then, right?
I don’t know if there will be another kiss in this particular novel, but there will be some later in the series. The girls are 15 year old twins. If I were to include this sister peck, should I balance it out with a kiss with the love interest to make it not entirely queer, or would it be good as it is? There already is a love story in this novel, one for each of the sisters, but neither of them gets kissed until later, so I wouldn’t be forcing it in there just to have this sisterly kiss.
I wouldn’t go into lengthly descriptions. The kiss would last one or two short sentences. I wouldn’t make it gross.
Just something like “She missed her so much, seeing her again she couldn’t help but give her sister a little peck on the lips.”
Well, if they kissed on the lips, (even if it was a peck), that would still sound kind of…gay. I think you should make the sister go like this: Sister runs up to other sister crying happily and takes other sister’s hands in her own. “I missed you so much!” She says and kisses her sister on the cheek.”
Hope I helped!
For everyone…do you believe that if parents did not tell their children these stories about a god that they?
grow up differently without the need for religion or god.
As more and more parents grow up without belief in god, do these same parents still teach these things to their children…knowing they are not real, but for whatever reason (its easier?) let them go down this path of thinking.
Will atheist parents who do not force this stuff down their childrens throats, have children whoa re less inclined to be religious. I guess what I am getting at is the relationship of indoctriantion of children with these ideas and the childrens belief later on in life.
As there are more non-believing parents, seems they would have more non-believing children, and that would be a large shift.
Is that a factor, adn do you think it is good or bad?
I went to catholic school my entire life, so I honestly find it hard to comprehend another non-religious family, who lets say sent their kids to public school, or non-catholic schools.
I am just trying to figure out, socially, is it better to believe or not believe….does it help job wise, does it help money wise, stress wise, life coping wise, does it help with avoiding jail and trouble with the law. Would the world be better with children, teenageers, and young adults running around without the teachings of the bible and fear of god instilled in them or with those teachings, etc? Is it necessary for those same guidlines to be instilled elsewhere….if so, where do they get them? How influential is the bible and life with god in preventing someone who could go either way morally/legally, with picking the better path? Or are some kids just hopeless no matter what…and others just “on the right track” regardless of religion or not?
Sorry for asking so many questions in one question…just give your thoughts…appreciate it
When not forced to believe, at least, the kids would have a chance to make up their own mind..with honest answers by their parents
Hypocrisy plays a big role in many families, because of an community they live in, their environment, traditions etc
Forceful indoctrination in any matter is not right and alters psychological development of an individual
Good manners and behavior is not determined by the bible, same as wrong deeds
It is based on recognition of right from wrong and using god and ”morals” as only way of life is plain wrong
Should we limit adoptions to certain people?
Many studies have shown and proven that a missing father or mother in a family has detrimental effects on a child, whether it is male or female. Keep this in mind.
Do you think that a law should be passed creating stipulations by which a child can be adopted? Such as….
1) must have both parents.
2) parents must have healthy relationship
Broken homes are a leading factor in teen crime and gang related activity, not to mention drug use and abuse, suicide, and eventually even homicide.
If these stipulations were in place, do you think it would be better?
This would make it nearly impossible for homosexual couples to adopt kids as well, seeing as how they lack having a healthy family environment. Two women cannot raise a child the way a man and a woman together can, nor can two men. The child will be heavily affected by the lifestyle he is forced to live, which would be just as bad as the above mentioned situations.
What do you think?
The laws that are in place are awful. Look up what all must be done to adopt a child. It costs an extravagant amount of money to be put on a waiting list! The prices are too much for many people.
On the gay thing. I do not believe that a child should be put into that situation just because its gay parents wanted a kid. If it is not biologically possible to have a kid with the two parents, then they should not have a kid (excluding the whole barren wife and narrow urethra problems). As soon as two women have sex and create a child by themselves, I will be okay with that. Same for the guys.
Im sure you guys will say something like, “the child doesnt say that they want a straight family either!” or something like that…But, it is natural for a man and woman to have a child, so there would be no confusion at all, but when a kid has to grow up and ask…wheres my daddy? ..and two women have to explain that to him….its awful.
not only should we have tougher standards for adoption, we should have tougher standards for anyone who wants children.
Every time I walk around the mall, go to the movies, or drive down the street I see a bunch of kids dressed like thugs and sluts and their parents seem to have no control or concern about how they act.
We wonder why 14 year old girls are getting pregnant, or why boys who haven’t even graduated high school can have 2 or 3 kids…well, ask their parents what they did to control it. I’m sick of the fact that my tax dollars are going to the 3rd generation trash of terrible parents who don’t know how to take care of their own kids….it all makes me sick.
Joining the Air Force…Need some medical clearance advice!?
Alright bare with me. I decided to join the Air Force about 3 months ago. When i first went in to the recruiter I left with a thick application which i filled out and brought back the next day. At the time, I had no medical history whatsoever so that’s how I filled it out. Two months, 12 shots, and one sexual mistake later i find out that i have contracted Herpes. I had no medical insurance so I went to a walk in clinic downtown to get tested and the doctor there told me not to mention the Herpes at all and that they don’t test for it. He was a former military doctor. Basically don’t ask don’t tell.
So now it’s almost time for me to go to MEPS. The doctor said that as long as i don’t have any physical signs of it then I would be fine. Well I don’t and Herpes is in fact, not a disqualifying factor as long as there are no uncontrollable outbreaks. Well, my questions are…
Ive heard that people lie/withhold info for things a lot worse and some of them don’t even get discharged…Is this true?
Are they going to ask me about my medical history again once I get to MEPS even if I already filled out this paperwork in the application?
Would it be possible for them to find this info from a clinic even though i had no insurance? How would they find it if only I know about it?
And lastly, I’m going for a secret clearance, will they find it there?
Basically I’m leaning towards following the doc’s advice and going with the don’t ask don’t tell theory…It’s something I’d like to keep private even though it wouldn’t disqualify me…What would you do? Thanks.
Ok…this is what you need to do. I am a recruiter and this comes up quite often.
MEPS will more than likely find out. I just had a girl get sent back from MEPS and she has Herpes. She went up there got scared and told the Dr.
Tell your recruiter. He/she will not judge you or forget about you. They will help you get in, whether it be by a waiver or by telling you to shut your mouth at MEPS.
Herpes is disqualifying but you can get a waiver for it and it will be approved so it won’t stop you from joining.
Best of luck to you and I hope this helped.
Why some people call Haye the “Savior” of the heavyweight division?Savior from the bad white guys?
Before i say anything, i want to make clear that i am a proud British man and a proud boxing fan!
I am a boxing fan for almost 30 years and i enjoy great boxers regardless race,religion,nationality and other unimportant factors.
I have had the luck to enjoy many great boxers during my life from the US ,UK ,Mexico,Argentina , Cuba and the former communist eastern European block.
Anyone with basic boxing knowledge knows that, what is happening today in boxing with the rise of these countries from E.Europe, would have happened sooner or later.These countries have been traditional dominant forces of the sport, with numerous medals at the Olympics and the world amateur championships,which means they did not wake up one day in the middle of the 90′s being great boxers,they have been great boxers for ever,boxing is part of their culture and a top sport in most of these countries!
So how my compatriot David Haye is going to save the division ?From who and how?Let’s say he beats both Klitschkos ok,don’t you see there is a whole army of ex Soviets which are keep coming and coming?David Haye will do what exactly?Will he fight until the age of 150 and beat all the fighters from the eastern European region?These countries produce boxers like we produce fish and chips in the UK ,they will be in the game for a long time and one boxer like Haye is not enough to change things i am afraid.I think it would be the best for everybody to just enjoy the sport regardless where the fighters come from or what the colour of their skin is,i thought this was the case in golf with Tiger as well,nobody is asking for a savior there right?
I think the savior is just a title for promotional reference, as you said he can’t beat them all. No boxer is around for too long anyway.
Does ANYONE remember Ceausescu? ?
Just something I’ve wondered in this whole Pro-life and Pro-choice debate.
If abortion is made illegal, wouldn’t anyone consider that family life would turn like something our of 1980′s Romania?
Of course, it would be ridiculous since that states would never establish celibacy tax (taxing women who weren’t pregnant), but IF abortion is made illegal, it would force millions of women to go to the back doors for illegal abortions to be made. People would be exposed to inexperienced or unlicensed doctors, thus making it likely for people to get hurt or killed for doing that. Plus children would be raised in bad environments when women in poverty would be forced to carry more mouths to feed and thus drag all of them down, and if abandoning them is the only option, who would pick them up?
There are still not enough people to even care for the children NOW that are in foster homes and in orphanages. I’ve noticed that whenever people go into adoption, they go to foreign countries such as china where it’s easier, or try to find only cute little babies. Foster homes also expose children to turbulent lifestyles and abuse, and a lot of free schools are also underpaid and under supplied. To me, taking away abortion would make a lot of things worse. I know there are a lot of incredible samaritans out there that actually try to help the crises of child abuse and lost and unwanted children, but everyone I know don’t even think about it, and that’s me who’ve travelled from america to spain, middle east and england. So I’m not a small towner who’s only lived in one state and one culture.
So here’s my question to all pro-lifers, do you think about these factors above at all if you’ve succeeded in your campaigns, does your organisations branch to the children in need? Enlighten me, PLEASE.
daboys12, or whatever your name is. Did you even read my question? I said that if people who are NOT capable of even raising children are now stuck with a child, it would pose a great problem over the entire family AND the child. I don’t know where you live, but I’ve had to contend with knowing even prostitutes in modern safe england where 46% of them (according to constabulary in Kent) were raped before they were 12.That’s a f@cking high number. Kids undernourished even in heartland america, people out of school with no financial or home security and living in squalid conditions. People like you never see them because you never bothered to notice. A broken and horrible childhood can cripple a person for life. In case you didn’t know.
daboys12, or whatever your name is. Did you even read my question? I said that if people who are NOT capable of even raising children are now stuck with a child, it would pose a great problem over the entire family AND the child. I don’t know where you live, but I’ve had to contend with knowing even prostitutes in modern safe england where 46% of them (according to constabulary in Kent) were raped before they were 12.That’s a f@cking high number. Kids undernourished even in heartland america, people out of school with no financial or home security and living in squalid conditions. People like you never see them because you never bothered to notice. A broken and horrible childhood can cripple a person for life. In case you didn’t know.
I agree with you 100% and Romania under Ceausescu is an example I often use myself when debating should abortion be illegal in the US.
It is a heated issue on both sides, but people should not forget what happened in Romania & how many suffered.
Do you agree with this quote?
“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and — thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”
I just reread Starship Troopers, fantastic book.
Anyone who didn’t grow up a liberal pansy knows that force solves many things.
Why do religious (any religion) people seem to be the most uptight people?
I am being entirely honest here.
Before any of you decide to tell me I have nothing to compare against, I was in Catholic schooling for 12+ years of my life. If I ever had to do that all over again, I’d probably run away from home.
Being forced into one line of thinking is probably the worst thing anyone can do to a child. And yet, they have entire SCHOOLS to do it in.
Now, in everyday life, and even here on these boards, I see all these religious people howling about how everything that their bible/book/whatever says is right, and everyone else is wrong.
Why can’t people try and help themselves, rather than hope to hell that something good will come their way?
Moreover, don’t yell at/kill other people for not believing what you say. Speaking about Muslim/Islam people, regarding the kill-factor. But the western religions can be just as bad. Sometimes worse. Yes, there are worst things than death.
If anyone can give me a decent answer, I’ll be a happy (unsaved) girl when I die.
I appreciate the comment about Buddhism!
Alright, not ALL religions have uptight jerkwads, but the majority seem to. Unless you see things their way, you’re wrong.
The gay bashing I’ve seen on here particularly drives in that point. Aren’t most religions taught to love everyone? Or did I miss the part that said Love everyone… “who is the same as you!”
Is open-minded-ness a sin?
I don’t recall that being on the chunks of rock the old fella brought on down from the mount!
It is what I call Dogmatic Asphyxia, as in they’ll go overboard into what is in their Bible, Islamic Qui’ran, Judaic Tanakh, Tok’ra* or whatever and take everything out of context, which, in turn, figuratively turns them brain dead from cutting off air (real world values) from thier brains.
like Islam, for example, they probably won’t allow one to have contact with a Infidel (Non-Islamic). The average person would take it as “OK, I won’t stay in business or marry someone who isn’t down with Allah”, but religious “nuts”, for example, does the Al-Qaeda stuff and view Infidels as a death-worthy enemy.
Now for them, they might be the Catholic/Christian equivalent of someone who kneels in the front of the church going “YES!!!! YESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” in tears with both hands in the air, but 10 times worse.
Usually it starts out as a minimalist devotion, as in promising to appear in church every Sunday, then some point or another, starts even going to bible studies, then decides another point to read the bible cover-to-cover, then reads it again to gain a perspective and try to gain culture, then with this culture gain, start to base life around say… 20 DC (During Christ if there is such a year; I just made it up), like the days when the bible is ACTUALLY understandable instead of being Archaic, all people lived in caves/huts/stone cottages and had to hunt to survive.
After a while, anybody who doesn’t have a tenet/belief system, or even that of a different religion (Islam, Judaism, etc.), is considered unworthy to God, but that is strictly of his or her own beliefs, and it was him/herself that got into fanaticism, so it’s hard to say.
*Edit: Oops, Tok’ra is a fictional alien race in Stargate.
could we be a spec of sand to another life force or being?
It just weird to think about given how big space is what if the entire universe is like a grain of salt to a greater much larger form of life.I know its crazy but the perspective of size is really only measured by the things around you.Now the earth compared to the rest of the universe is smaller that the smallest atom im guessing, so why couldnt there be something out there that is so big that we mean absolutely nothing to like a grain of salt or a spec of sand x 1000.
I dont know i tend to think about weird stuff like that I also think about life and death on a daily basis its just so hard not to. I find its all about time everything is if you think about it ,but time itself is hard to think about. Time would mean nothing if it werent for memories, but what good are memories you wake up everyday in the present and any joy or pain that you felt in the past may linger in the present but for most things its gone which would mean the difference between a 90 yr old waking up and a 10yr old waking up is luck when it comes down to it and soon the 10yr old will be that 90yr old. The 90yr might have more memories but you ask a 90 yr old if it felt like a long time I cant see most ppl saying it was and there ready to go, now with the 10yr old they would say 90yrs is a great deal of time and really they cant comprehend themselves ever being 90. Then it gets me thinking again since the beginning of the universe our entire life or even our entire species has been around for a blink of an eye when you look at it large scale. So time as human’s is everything but you have to believe time plays a factor for the entire universe and beyond. Yes some things might not be able to die but as time passes the odds for something bad happening to anything in the universe goes up, now if everything stood still time then would mean NOTHING which it clearly doesnt but why?
We Are!
( Atleast Spiritually is based on that idea.)
If you identify with just your body then you become attached to the body, and die with that identity.. and so on.. the cycle continues.. dwelling on seperateness consciousness
Whereas you can also selflesssly identify with the whole celestial and sentient universe, and you can merge with the Whole consciousness
I have this really annoying friend?
She’s really close to me although I’ve only known her for about one year. She’s constantly calling me and is so clingy. She’s a great and funny friend, but sometimes she can irritate me to no end. She doesn’t know when to stop and is always using me for homework questions, even for homework that I’ve spent hours on, trying to get hte correct answer, she tries to just copy it off of me and doesn’t even try looking for the naswer. Also, during class, she always talks to me even when I tell her to wait because I’m trying to figure something out and sometimes I miss what the teacher says. Btw, I’m a really good student and I really care about my grades. So, aside from the annoying factor, she’s a bad influence on me, although she has a great personality and would never force me to drink or whatever. I’ve ignored her calls before, but then she just leaves messages asking for homework help and after a few times, I finally call her back, or else she’ll suspect something. At times, she calls five times in one hour because I don’t pick up. I’m just so sick of this but I don’t want our friendship to end because I’ve had a friend who had a bad influence on me so I kind of started a fight with her on purpse so that we wouldn’t be friends anymore but the way I went about it was kind of mean, and now I regret it. Please help! Thank you so much.
Wow, I know what you mean like they don’t stop calling you? It can get sOO annoying. The best thing to do in class is just to ignore her. Tell her you are interested in what she is saying but you cant talk to her at that moment because you are busy in like the classrrorom. She will soon get the point that you don’t want to talk to her in class and then she will probably stop. Try going to the teacher privately and ask if you can change seating arangements because the girl is affecting how well you listen and say she is distracting you.And never let anyone copy your homework because anytime they dont have it done they will always know that you are smart and you have the answers so they will always go to you for copying. Tell her that its wrong to copy and if you worked hours on it tell her it is too long for her to copy. Thats what i do and it works lol i hope it goes well!
Christians, what is the real freedom of choice act?
what is the real freedom of choice act? I will tell you and please bare with me; it’s kind of long. I told you the freedom, the choice and the act.
Freedom is to love God, the choice is to say yes to God and the act is moral good act.
Human Freedom: “is more than a capacity to choose between this and that. It is the God-given power to become who he created us to be and so to share eternal union with him. This happens when we consistently choose ways that are in harmony with God’s plan. Christian morality and God’s law are not arbitrary, but are specifically given to us for our happiness. God gave us intelligence and the capacity to act freely. Ultimately, human freedom lies in our free decision to say “yes” to God. In contrast, many people today understand human freedom merely as the ability to make a choice, with no objective norm or good as the goal. An opposite tendency to one that makes the act of choosing the core of human freedom is one that denies that we are free at all. Some believe that due to outside forces, inner compulsions, social pressures, childhood experiences, or genetic makeup, our behavior is already determined and we are not truly free. Though we do recognize that “the imputability or responsibility for an action can be diminished or nullified by ignorance, distress, fear, and other psychological or social factors”(CCC,no.1746), normally we are still free and responsible for our actions. Our freedom may be limited but it is real nonetheless. The best way to grow in freedom is to perform good acts. Good deeds help to make us free and develop good habits. The road to loss of freedom is through evil acts. Sin makes us slaves of evil and reduces our capacity to be free. Freedom comes from being moral. Slavery to sin arises from being immoral.”
The Understanding of Moral Acts: “Another important foundation of Christian morality is the understanding of moral acts. Every moral act consists of three elements: the objective act(what we do), the subjective goal or intention(why we do the act), and the concrete situation or circumstances in which we perform the act(where, when, how, with whom, the consequences, etc.). For an individual act to be morally good, the object, or what we are doing, must be objectively good. Some acts, apart from the intention or reason for doing them, are always wrong because they go against a fundamental or basic human good that ought never to be compromised. Direct killing of the innocent, torture, and rape are examples of acts that are always wrong. Such acts are referred to as intrinsically evil acts, meaning that they are wrong in themselves, apart from the reason they are done or the circumstances surrounding them.
The goal, end, or intention is the part of the moral act that lies within the person. For this reason, we say that the intention is the subjective element of the moral act. For an act to be morally good, one’s intention must be good. If we are motivated to do something by a bad intention-even something that is objectively good-our action is morally evil. It must also be recognized that a good intention cannot make a bad action(something intrinsically evil)good. We can never do something wrong or evil in order to bring about a good. This is the meaning of the saying,”the end does not justify the means”(cf.CCC, nos. 1749-1761).
The circumstances and the consequences of the act make up the third element of moral action. These are secondary to the evaluation of a moral act in that they contribute to increasing or decreasing the goodness or badness of the act. In addition, the circumstances may affect one’s personal moral responsibility for the act. All three aspects must be good-the objective act, the subjective intention, and the circumstances-in order to have a morally good act.
The teaching, which recognizes both the objective and subjective dimension of morality, is often at odds with a perspective that views morality as a completely personal or merely subjective reality. In such a view, held by some in our culture, there are no objective norms capable of demanding our moral compliance. Such a denial of an objective and unchanging moral order established by God results in a vision of morality and moral norms as being a matter of personal opinion of as established only through the consent of the individual members of society.” Catholic Catechism for Adults: Chapter 23 Life in Christ.
oh, did i upset some of the most lazy people?
WAKE UP! AND DO SOME WORK!
READ WHAT I GAVE YOU AND MAYBE YOU LEARN THE TRUTH AND NOT THE FAKE TRUTH THAT THE MEDIA GIVES OUT; BECAUSE IT’S WORTHLESS.
I GIVE YOU THE REAL TRUTH; WAKE UP.
very well said
and how to keep it short but sweet
is
“I put before you the issues of life and death…..therefore CHOOSE LIFE…”
Entire problem is that we are living in a godless/ungodly society
and
many literally refuse to “be not conformed to this world.”
However,we will simply continue to go about our business,”operating” under the Law and always with love.
Why does Mexico keep dominating the US?
(A little role reversal)
Why is it that The US can’t beat Mexico away from home? They have never won a match against Mexico in their territory? Whenever they play Mexico clearly dominates, it’s not even close. The US has never been able to impose their style of play in the Azteca, it’s as if they freeze and are terrified. Clearly Mexico is much more dominant.
Sound familiar? Well it’s what you US fans do. You start talking about how you are undefeated in the last 10 years against Mexico and that is the reason you are the dominant force in the CONCACAF. Reality check!!! You aren’t dominating anything. You boast about Beating Mexico and your record against them but your like bad politicians. Why do you only factor in games that are played in your soil, most of which are friendly matches. If you only counted Official matches then you would see that things are even; but instead you lie to yourselves and only say 10-2-0. Mexicans don’t go around saying Oh yeah US can’t beat us were 23-0 against them. Why do you make such a deal about being undefeated in US soil I think that should be a given with any home team. The difference is that Mexico CAN win in US soil, they have outplayed,with the exception on last night, the US in its home but just haven’t found the goals to bring home a victory. On the other hand I don’t think even the most optimistic US fan can hope for a win in El Azteca.
Kido- I’m not making excuses. I admit that the US deserved to win yesterday. I’m addressing the attitude I see in US fans saying that they are the Dominant soccer.
Dear Wey Ese De Yahoo Answers,
The point is exactly what you stated. Mexico can’t win in US and vice verca. So the US fans can stop with all the 10-2-0 and “We Dominate.” You don’t see Argentina boasting about a home record when they beat Brazil in Buenos Aires. They know better than that, It would make them look stupid because they haven’t been on the winning side in Brazil as it should be when 2 teams are even.
I think it’s fair to say that Mexico dominates the series at Azteca and the U.S dominates the series on U.S. soil. We can each boast of our victories and do. However the U.S has won some important matches in recent years including a 2-0 victory in the 2002 World Cup in Japan and a 2-1 win in Chicago in the 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup final. Considering that Mexico dominated the series for more than 60 years, the U.S. has made significant strides and deserves some respect I agree we don’t have any reason to boast (based on our overall record), but I wonder if Mexico had won last night, if Mexican fans would feel the same way. It has become a great rivalry, which I think is good for futbol in the both countries.
P.S.- I have seen (in person) the last three matches on U.S. soil and Mexico has NOT outplayed the U.S. in any of those contests.
Mechanical Advantage : Science physics; Help pleaseee neeed Asap give you 20 points or more for the best answr?
im doing physics on mechanical advantage really need your help sooooooooo bad!
1. Calculate the mechanical advantage for your small gear wheel.
( you can do it on any of your type of wheels or a toy car)
2.Calculate the mechanical advantage of your medium size gear wheel.
3. Calculate the mechanical advantage of your large gear wheel.
4. Calculate the work done in pushing a car a distance of 10m. When moving slowly the car has a resisting friction force of 200N.
a..2J
b 20J
c. 200J
d. 2000J
5. If there were no resisting frictional force, which answer do you predict would be closest to the amount of work required to move a car 10 m?
a. 2j
b. 20j
c. 200j
d. 2000j
challenge:
6. An incline plane is used to lift a 100 kg barrel onto a drinks bar at a height of 1m. The plane is 5m long. How much force is required to roll the barrel up the plane?
Hints Draw a diagram of the situation. Calculate the force required to lift the barrel straight up without any plane. This info is found in lesson 3, weight force. Use the information in lesson 5 on inclined planes to calculate the mechanical advantage. Divide the force straight up by the mechanical advantage factor to find the force to roll up the plane.
a. 20N
b. 980N
c. 196N
d. 4900N
7. The baby weighs 15kg and the elephant weighs 3T. How many pulleys and ropes are required for the baby to lift the elephant?
a. 2000 ropes & pulleys
b. 200 ropes & pulleys
c. 20 ropes & pulleys
d. 1000 ropes & pulleys
8. strong meter rule is used as a lever and the fulcrum is placed under the 90cm mark. What mass would need to be placed on the long end of the lever to lift a 1kg mass on the short end?
a. 111g
b. 9kg
c. 1kg
d. 12g
( i know this is alot , if you give me a really good answer ill giev you like 20 points.)
please help really appreciated.:).
G’day!!
You are unable to give 20 points even if you wanted to!
1,2 and 3 are impossible to do… I know nothing about your wheels but MA = Load/effort.
4) Work = force x distance moved = 200N x 10m = 2000J.
5) 2J… it’s like pushing it on ice.
6) Are you sure you mean ‘force’ not work?
100kg = 100 x 9.8N = 980N( that’s the force)
Work = 980N x 1m = 980J ( up against gravity)
7) Need a diagram of the pulley system
M = 10000/90
M = 111g
2 can someone help with discussion questions? because my english is bad and i’m new student in the college 1yr
On the edge of Europe: the Gypsies in Finland
Romani is what the ‘Gypsies’ call themselves in every country in which they are found, but
Gypsies is an English word derived from the slurred Egyptian, referring to where the English
thought the Romani must have originated.
And as might be guessed from their inaccurate English name, the Romani are seldom
well understood or liked by their neighbours. The Romani have lived in Finland since the sixteenth century, some 400 years, but they are still treated as outsiders by the ‘white’ Finnish
majority.
The Romani originated as a distinct group in what is now northern India. They have
spent centuries wandering, and can be found in many parts of Asia and Europe, particularly
south-eastern Europe. Many still speak the Romani language, which is distinct from any European language. The Romani have been able to retain a powerful, separate identity from many of their host cultures. They have occasionally been the object of extremely harsh persecution, and in some areas of Central Europe they were almost exterminated by the Nazis during World War II.
Most Romani prefer to dress in their traditional clothing. Men wear dark suits, while
women wear hoop-skirts with aprons and ruffles. Most Romani have dark hair and olive complexions, and the denigrating term for the Romani, mustalaisia, derives from musta or black.
Finland’s best-known ethnic group, the indigenous Samis or Lapps, number only around 2,500.
In contrast, the Romani population is probably somewhere between 6,500 and 10,000.
Finland is not generally well known as a country with widespread racism, but discrimination
against the Romani has only recently been made illegal. As the targets of governmental
efforts to ‘integrate’ them into the larger population and culture, they have endured extreme
measures, including the forced removal of Romani children from their homes for placement in
state-run children’s homes. This practice only ended in 1970. Not until 1992 were Finland’s
citizens guaranteed equal protection under the law or the right to their own culture.
The Romani in Finland tend to have lower literacy rates, less education and economic
resources, and higher levels of poverty than white Finns; many depend on state-funded welfare.
A director of a charitable organisation for the Romani stated, ‘Most Finns say that the mustalaisia
are lazy, that they don’t want to work, and that they are not able to perform ordinary jobs.
They say they’re dishonest and irresponsible’.
Heikki Lampela, who is only part Romani, faces this attitude directly and often: ‘In restaurants
where I had never been before, people told me, “Get out of here. We don’t like
Gypsies”… People in Finland hate Gypsies. They don’t want Gypsies to come into society because they don’t like them. And Gypsies have their own society. The Finnish lifestyle and the
Gypsy lifestyle are like day and night’.
Recent legislation has made overt, formal racism less common, and many Romani hope
that these changes will result in the material improvement of their lives. But many Romani also
have their doubts about any economic or social improvement. As Lampela says, ‘If we’re talking
about a dog, does it matter what pedigree it is? People use their eyes here, they don’t use
their brains. They don’t ask how you feel inside’.
Source
Sloane, Wendy. ‘After four centuries in Finland, gypsies still live on the fringe’. Christian Science
Monitor (14 June 1995): 11.
Discussion questions
1. Does discrimination against the Romani simply reflect racism or cultural prejudices as
well?
2. Does the EU provide an effective format for combating racism in Europe?
3. What factors determine whether a group of people have a right to live in a particular area?
There really isn’t racism here…gypsies are known for their lifestyles which are not based in culture at all, but rather living off what they can for the longest they can and leaving. Often they support themselves through criminal activity.