This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Winy
Pages: 1 ... 919293 9495 ... 106
2761
« on: September 17, 2015, 12:48:30 PM »
I don't automatically hate anyone.
This.
2762
« on: September 17, 2015, 12:45:59 PM »
- George Washington stopped at a tavern in my town while en route to command the Continental Army
- George Washington also slept in my town during his inaugural tour
- Shay's Rebellion started in my town, the riots that followed were personally put down by John Hancock
2763
« on: September 16, 2015, 01:31:40 PM »
We should acknowledge the different definitions of being "in shape". A person can have good cardiovascular health and be weak, and someone who is strong can have poor cardiovascular health. It's rare that a person can be fit in the entirety of the spectrum because people train for different things. A powerlifter and a swimmer will have different training methods thus they'll have different levels of fitness.
I don't really agree with this. I'm a very muscular guy, but my running is far from optimal. I do not consider myself "In-shape," I consider myself just "Strong" or "Muscular."
2764
« on: September 16, 2015, 01:30:23 PM »
I feel that you're not grasping what's "thin" to me. It's not Casper-tier, it just means you're lean.
It really doesn't matter what your definition of "Thin" is, in this argumentative context. You equated a body type (Thin) with a fitness capacity (Fit), but just conceded that they were not actually equal.
Well, I'm not some master arguer like you or Verbatim. I just said that because Assassin was all about "you have to have muscles to be fit" and I was trying to refute that. Jeez.
It's not about being a master of arguments, it's about properly saying what you're trying to say. The way you decided to write about your views and respond to others was very confusing.
2765
« on: September 15, 2015, 11:29:13 PM »
I feel that you're not grasping what's "thin" to me. It's not Casper-tier, it just means you're lean.
It really doesn't matter what your definition of "Thin" is, in this argumentative context. You equated a body type (Thin) with a fitness capacity (Fit), but just conceded that they were not actually equal.
2766
« on: September 15, 2015, 11:26:30 PM »
I'm talking about the "fit" definition. There's a big difference between looking like a bodybuilder and being in shape. If you're thin, but can run around, play sports, etc, without getting winded then you're in shape. It's a general term.
If you can run around, play sports, etc without getting winded in any body type, then you're in shape. If a slightly overweight person trains more vigorously to be able to run long distances, then they are more "In-shape" than a skinny person that cannot perform as optimally. "Fitness" is only controlled by physical appearance to a degree. The degree is rather large, but it leads to misconceptions.
I agree completely. This is what I've been trying to say.
I do feel the need to remind you that you stated what is essentially the exact opposite of my current understanding of your position two pages ago: If you're thin, you're fit.
2767
« on: September 15, 2015, 11:22:48 PM »
I'm talking about the "fit" definition. There's a big difference between looking like a bodybuilder and being in shape. If you're thin, but can run around, play sports, etc, without getting winded then you're in shape. It's a general term.
If you can run around, play sports, etc without getting winded in any body type, then you're in shape. If a slightly overweight person trains more vigorously to be able to run long distances, then they are more "In-shape" than a skinny person that cannot perform as optimally. "Fitness" is only controlled by physical appearance to a degree. The degree is rather large, but it leads to misconceptions.
2768
« on: September 15, 2015, 11:16:44 PM »
You're the one who's using it in relation to body type. And, for the record, I think you're the odd man out here. I've honestly never once heard physical appearance alone equated to the phrase "In-shape." And I've grown very accustomed to athletic and fitness jargon. It is always used in the context of athletic capabilities.
I miscredited Assassin's quote to you earlier, but I'm saying athletic capabilities matter a lot more than physical appearance.
I mean, in terms of functionality, yes, but there are varying types of functionality that disallow certain physical skills to be applied usefully in other areas of manual labor. Standing outside this issue as well, whether or not somebody's physical appearance matters more or less than their ability to perform some task is mostly subjective.
2769
« on: September 15, 2015, 11:13:33 PM »
EDIT: Actually, I misread this post. Never mind. Refer to my last one only.
2770
« on: September 15, 2015, 11:10:36 PM »
If working out improved my social adeptness, allowed me to form a broader range of bonds with a more diverse group of people, and improved my communications skills (Which it did in all three manners for me) You should have been able to do all of that without strength training. That's my argument. Strength training is a placebo.
Why should I? Through sheer power of will and thought? As wonderful as that would be, and as fantastic as I'd love for my entire mentality to be free of bias and universally not-so-important concerns, that wasn't the case for me, and it isn't the case for many people. It can be a means to an end that does provide benefits to one's self and, in many cases, others. Placebo or not, it has the capacity to work wonders; and that's what matters in the end.
2771
« on: September 15, 2015, 11:06:09 PM »
Your whole argument is "can't be fit if you don't have muscles" Lil' challenge for you. Go back and find where I said this. Seriously. Do it. I can wait.
2772
« on: September 15, 2015, 11:05:04 PM »
Isn't nothing worthwhile to you, though? No. Building shit for other people to use is worthwhile. Helping other people is worthwhile. Impressing other people by building yourself? That's not worthwhile. You're not actually doing anything.
If working out improved my social adeptness, allowed me to form a broader range of bonds with a more diverse group of people, and improved my communications skills (Which it did in all three manners for me), then it wasn't a waste of time, because those three improvements are directly related to my capacity to help others. Granted, this isn't really the purpose that most people use initially when they decide to pick up strength training, but like many other things, whether or not something can be considered "Useful" is determined by how its progress and consequences are handled.
2773
« on: September 15, 2015, 10:58:52 PM »
You can be fit without being buff. Being thin is being fit, and it looks way less gross.
You said muscled, having muscles is a requirement for being fit. Are we using thin/skinny, and buff/muscular interchangeably? If so, that's kinda dumb.
Uh, no. Not at all. You don't need muscles to be fit. If you're thin, you're fit.
And yeah....they're synonyms.
...They're not synonyms at all. Being "Thin" speaks very little about your actual athletic training or your cardiovascular health.
Thin and skinny are synonyms....buff and muscular are synonyms. I never said thin and fit are synonyms, but yeah, if you're not chubby or fat, you're in shape. You don't need to have muscles to be physically fit.
I don't think you have a typical definition of "In-shape," then. That phrase, in all of my training and athletic activities, has always been used in reference to athletic capacity, not a person's body type.
2774
« on: September 15, 2015, 10:55:35 PM »
You can be fit without being buff. Being thin is being fit, and it looks way less gross.
You said muscled, having muscles is a requirement for being fit. Are we using thin/skinny, and buff/muscular interchangeably? If so, that's kinda dumb.
Uh, no. Not at all. You don't need muscles to be fit. If you're thin, you're fit.
And yeah....they're synonyms.
...They're not synonyms at all. Being "Thin" speaks very little about your actual athletic training or your cardiovascular health.
2775
« on: September 15, 2015, 10:54:17 PM »
I don't see why you view it as problematic that people are more proud and confident in their bodies if they decide to work out for whatever physique they may be trying to achieve. i don't think it's problematic—i think it's pathetic
it's a literal non-achievement
Why?
2776
« on: September 15, 2015, 10:51:07 PM »
>needing to be muscular in order to feel comfortable/proud/confident with your body
smh
Not really.
not really what
I don't see why you view it as problematic that people are more proud and confident in their bodies if they decide to work out for whatever physique they may be trying to achieve.
2777
« on: September 15, 2015, 10:46:50 PM »
>needing to be muscular in order to feel comfortable/proud/confident with your body
smh
Not really.
2778
« on: September 15, 2015, 10:46:12 PM »
I cared about the fact you were equating being comfortable and proud of your body to strength training. Because for many people, those things are equated. I don't understand what the problem is with this.
2779
« on: September 15, 2015, 10:11:40 PM »
It would have profoundly negative effects on the food chain, which would inevitably have consequences for human interests.
2780
« on: September 15, 2015, 09:51:35 PM »
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
2781
« on: September 15, 2015, 09:47:40 PM »
Yeah, and the implication is that you can only become more comfortable and proud of your body through being muscular.
That's also false. At no point did I ever state or imply that it was the only way to boost your confidence. To say that it can be a means to do so is absolutely not the same as stating it is the only way. And, if you read back, you can see that I only wrote the former.
You definitely implied it.
You are making the misjudgement of assuming that all benefits of doing strength training come from reactive consequences, and that these reactive consequences are solely derived from your physique. This isn't the case; you can develop a much greater sense of self-worth, confidence, and social ability through becoming more comfortable and proud of your body. These are all internal properties that affect your ability to communicate with people.
No, I didn't. Nothing that you underlined even implies that on their own; and they're even more easily defensible with context. That entire paragraph was an objection to the idea that the benefits experienced from weightlifting were solely because of the physique gained from it. That isn't the case, as I explained that engaging in that activity as the secondary benefit of potentially giving you boosts in confidence, mental clarity, and social adeptness.
You are arguing that I implied a black-and-white "If you don't lift weights, you can't have confidence" mentality. It is incredibly easy to see, when reading my posts, that that is not the case whatsoever. End of story.
You're obviously just skimming my posts, because I have never expressed that mentality. I underlined those two things, because the first one shows the subject that we're talking about (strength training), and the second says that "you can develop a much greater sense of self-worth, confidence, and social ability through becoming more comfortable and proud of your body." The implication being that becoming more comfortable and proud of your body is directly tied to gaining muscle. When there are many, many more ways than that for it to happen.
Yes, the statement is obviously in reference to strength training. That was the entire subject of my post. That does not mean that the sentence was only applicable to the directly-mentioned subject. And yet, for the third time, it still states afterwards that it can give you those benefits. Are you seriously this dense? I don't understand how you seemingly keep forgetting how I specified my meaning with the use of that simple word.
2782
« on: September 15, 2015, 09:41:05 PM »
Yeah, and the implication is that you can only become more comfortable and proud of your body through being muscular.
That's also false. At no point did I ever state or imply that it was the only way to boost your confidence. To say that it can be a means to do so is absolutely not the same as stating it is the only way. And, if you read back, you can see that I only wrote the former.
You definitely implied it.
You are making the misjudgement of assuming that all benefits of doing strength training come from reactive consequences, and that these reactive consequences are solely derived from your physique. This isn't the case; you can develop a much greater sense of self-worth, confidence, and social ability through becoming more comfortable and proud of your body. These are all internal properties that affect your ability to communicate with people.
No, I didn't. Nothing that you underlined even implies that on their own; and they're even more easily defensible with context. In fact, the second sentence you underlined is in direct support of your position. That entire paragraph was an objection to the idea that the benefits experienced from weightlifting were solely because of the physique gained from it. That isn't the case, as I explained that engaging in that activity as the secondary benefit of potentially giving you boosts in confidence, mental clarity, and social adeptness. You are arguing that I implied a black-and-white "If you don't lift weights, you can't have confidence" mentality. It is incredibly easy to see, when reading my posts, that that is not the case whatsoever. End of story.
2783
« on: September 15, 2015, 09:34:19 PM »
Yeah, and the implication is that you can only become more comfortable and proud of your body through being muscular.
That's also false. At no point did I ever state or imply that it was the only way to boost your confidence. To say that it can be a means to do so is absolutely not the same as stating it is the only way. And, if you read back, you can see that I only wrote the former.
2784
« on: September 15, 2015, 09:30:23 PM »
My objection to your view had nothing to do with whether or not muscle-building activities suited your tastes; I never once stated that. My initial disagreement stemmed from what I understood as your claim that people with muscular bodies experienced benefits solely based on their appearance, and that is demonstrably wrong.
2785
« on: September 15, 2015, 09:26:18 PM »
You are making the misjudgement of assuming that all benefits of doing strength training come from reactive consequences, and that these reactive consequences are solely derived from your physique. This isn't the case; you can develop a much greater sense of self-worth, confidence, and social ability through becoming more comfortable and proud of your body. These are all internal properties that affect your ability to communicate with people.
And you're making the misjudgment that being muscular positively affects your self-worth and confidence. When I stayed at my great-uncle's cabin in the UP two summers ago, we pretty much had no electricity and had to cut down trees and do manual labor and all of that to run the generator. By the time the summer was over, I was getting pretty muscular, and I hated it. I'm just not the type of person who derives positive value from being toned. When someone tells me I'm a twig, that makes me so much happier than when people told me I was "getting some muscle". It's pretty ignorant to assume that getting buff is some inherent bringer of self-value and happiness. I release endorphins when I work out, sure, but nearly all of my workouts are cardio-based.
Read more carefully next time: "This isn't the case; you can develop a much greater sense of self-worth, confidence, and social ability through becoming more comfortable and proud of your body." Note. "Can."
2786
« on: September 15, 2015, 09:23:24 PM »
you literally can't win picking either of these options.
You can win with either.
2787
« on: September 15, 2015, 09:20:09 PM »
That same feeling of control comes with staying thin and in shape. I just don't like muscles. Don't like how they look or what they represent. They remind me too much of "manly" dudebros. I find thin people infinitely more attractive than muscleheads. Society obviously disagrees with me, as Snake said, because buffness is the typical "guy" trait, and people eat that up.
You're also stereotyping and entire group of people solely based on the fact that they have more muscle than you. To admit that your distaste for muscles is partially contributed to by the fact that you believe it represents something is a flaw on your end.
You can't deny that being muscular is a typically masculine trait. And I'm stereotyping now? I said for me. Not for everyone.
By saying that you don't like what muscles "represent," and that they ring the "manly dude-bro" stereotype (And it is a stereotype), it certainly sounds as if you're typecasting.
2788
« on: September 15, 2015, 09:18:30 PM »
Men respect me more
I get more attention from girls
I feel strong and confident thanks to my body
People tend to be friendlier to me
People say they feel safe with me(srs lol)
Notice that all of these advantages are in relation to other people
...Yes, most people favor being at an advantage when it comes to their relationships with others, no? Humans are fundamentally driven by our interactions with others, why would somebody not want to heighten their social, physical, and mental capabilities?
Because the people who are going to like me more for being muscular aren't the people I want to chill with. I don't want people to look at me and think I'm buff, I want people to look at me and think I'm thin.
You are making the misjudgement of assuming that all benefits of doing strength training come from reactive consequences, and that these reactive consequences are solely derived from your physique. This isn't the case; you can develop a much greater sense of self-worth, confidence, and social ability through becoming more comfortable and proud of your body. These are all internal properties that affect your ability to communicate with people.
2789
« on: September 15, 2015, 09:13:02 PM »
That same feeling of control comes with staying thin and in shape. I just don't like muscles. Don't like how they look or what they represent. They remind me too much of "manly" dudebros. I find thin people infinitely more attractive than muscleheads. Society obviously disagrees with me, as Snake said, because buffness is the typical "guy" trait, and people eat that up.
You're also stereotyping and entire group of people solely based on the fact that they have more muscle than you. To admit that your distaste for muscles is partially contributed to by the fact that you believe it represents something is a flaw on your end.
2790
« on: September 15, 2015, 09:11:03 PM »
Men respect me more
I get more attention from girls
I feel strong and confident thanks to my body
People tend to be friendlier to me
People say they feel safe with me(srs lol)
Notice that all of these advantages are in relation to other people
...Yes, most people favor being at an advantage when it comes to their relationships with others, no? Humans are fundamentally driven by our interactions with others, why would somebody not want to heighten their social, physical, and mental capabilities?
Pages: 1 ... 919293 9495 ... 106
|
Show Posts