It happened to me once in high school. It wasn't a big deal.
It happened to me once in high school. It wasn't a big deal.
A Skeptic wrote:
It happened to me once in high school. It wasn't a big deal.
.
A philosophical question. If you are a skeptic, do you believe yourself? If you believe yourself, how can you be called a skeptic? If you believe no one, why even say anything?
If you are over 6 feet shorts are usually 9-10 inches at the least.
If you are between 5-6 and 6 foot the shorts are usually 8-9 inches at the least.
If you are below 5'6 the shorts are 7.5 inches.
Go measure your shorts, you'll find that they are in fact longer usually.
When you run they bunch up, which is why they are little longer than they should be.
Its still stupid for a dude thats huge wearing shorts that are too small, but even if there is exposure it shouldn't be noticeable.
I just checked my HS and College race shorts, and neither of them were under 11".
I do have a pair that are 9" from when I was in middle school.
So you must be wearing some really SHORT SHORTS! Like dudes in butt huggers.
the Real UncleB wrote:
A Skeptic wrote:It happened to me once in high school. It wasn't a big deal.
.
A philosophical question. If you are a skeptic, do you believe yourself? If you believe yourself, how can you be called a skeptic? If you believe no one, why even say anything?
Who shall forbid a wise skepticism, seeing that there is no practical question on which anything more than an approximate solution can be had? Is not marriage an open question when it is alleged, from the beginning of the world, that such as are in the institution wish to get out, and such as are out wish to get in? And the reply of Socrates, to him who asked whether he should choose a wife, still remains reasonable, "that, whether he should choose one or not, he would repent it." Is not the state a question? All society is divided in opinion on the subject of the state. Nobody loves it; great numbers dislike it, and suffer conscientious scruples to allegiance: and the only defense set up, is, the fear of doing worse in disorganizing. Is it otherwise with the church? Or, to put any of the questions which touch mankind nearest,—shall the young man aim at a leading part in law, in politics, in trade? It will not be pretended that a success in either of these kinds is quite coincident with what is best and inmost in his mind. Shall he, then, cutting the stays that hold him fast to the social state, put out to sea with no guidance but his genius? There is much to say on both sides. Remember the open question between the present order of "competition," and the friends of "attractive and associated labor." The generous minds embrace the proposition of labor shared by all; it is the only honesty; nothing else is safe. It is from the poor man's hut alone, that strength and virtue come; and yet, on the other side, it is alleged that labor impairs the form, and breaks the spirit of man, and the laborers cry unanimously, "We have no thoughts." Culture, how indispensable! I cannot forgive you the want of accomplishment; and yet, culture will instantly destroy that chiefest beauty of spontaneousness. Excellent is culture for a savage; but once let him read in the book, and he is no longer able not to think of Plutarch's heroes. In short, since true fortitude of understanding consists "in not letting what we know be embarrassed by what we do not know," we ought to secure those advantages which we can command, and not risk them by clutching after the airy and unattainable. Come, no chimeras! Let us go abroad; let us mix in affairs; let us learn, and get, and have, and climb. "Men are a sort of moving plants, and, like trees, receive a great part of their nourishment from the air. If they keep too much at home, they pine." Let us have a robust, manly life; let us know what we know, for certain; what we have, let it be solid, and seasonable, and our own. A world in the hand is worth two in the bush. Let us have to do with real men and women, and not with skipping ghosts.
This, then, is the right ground of the skeptic,—this of consideration, of self-containing; not at all of unbelief; not at all of universal denying, nor of universal doubting,—doubting even that he doubts; least of all, of scoffing and profligate jeering at all that is stable and good. These are no more his moods than are those of religion and philosophy. He is the considerer, the prudent, taking in sail, counting stock, husbanding his means, believing that a man has too many enemies, than that he can afford to be his own; that we cannot give ourselves too many advantages, in this unequal conflict, with powers so vast and unweariable ranged on one side, and this little, conceited, vulnerable popinjay that a man is, bobbing up and down into every danger, on the other. It is a position taken up for better defense, as of more safety, and one that can be maintained; and it is one of more opportunity and range; as, when we build a house, the rule is, to set it not too high nor too low, under the wind, but out of the dirt
US Navy a Great Way of Life wrote:
If you feel the need to expose yourself in public and then tell us about it then we want you. The US Navy is a Great Way of Life. We have real men. And do I mean real men.
Since gay men will be allowed in the Army, straight men should now be allowed in the Navy.
Mudd Runner wrote:
This reminds me something that happened several years ago during a Mud Run.
I ran with a lady friend. She wanted me to help her through the obstacle course. We wore camo pants and shirts, because that's what you do in a Mud Run.
We got a 6 foot wall and she asked me to boost her over. I lifer her up and she as she tossed one leg over the wall her pants split from the crotch top the back.
Suddenly, over 200 guys, mostly young military, cheered. I wasn't sure why the sudden cheering.
Well, after climbing over the wall and continuing the run with her. I noticed she was blushing. I asked her if she was feeling okay and she said she was embarrassed. She wasn't warning anything under the cammy pants. She had spread eagled over 200 guys. That's why they were cheering.
...and you missed it
I'm almost positive he was sleeping with his lady friend.
So he missed nothing.
A Skeptic wrote:
the Real UncleB wrote:.
A philosophical question. If you are a skeptic, do you believe yourself? If you believe yourself, how can you be called a skeptic? If you believe no one, why even say anything?
Who shall forbid a wise skepticism, seeing that there is no practical question on which anything more than an approximate solution can be had? Is not marriage an open question when it is alleged, from the beginning of the world, that such as are in the institution wish to get out, and such as are out wish to get in? And the reply of Socrates, to him who asked whether he should choose a wife, still remains reasonable, "that, whether he should choose one or not, he would repent it." Is not the state a question? All society is divided in opinion on the subject of the state. Nobody loves it; great numbers dislike it, and suffer conscientious scruples to allegiance: and the only defense set up, is, the fear of doing worse in disorganizing. Is it otherwise with the church? Or, to put any of the questions which touch mankind nearest,—shall the young man aim at a leading part in law, in politics, in trade? It will not be pretended that a success in either of these kinds is quite coincident with what is best and inmost in his mind. Shall he, then, cutting the stays that hold him fast to the social state, put out to sea with no guidance but his genius? There is much to say on both sides. Remember the open question between the present order of "competition," and the friends of "attractive and associated labor." The generous minds embrace the proposition of labor shared by all; it is the only honesty; nothing else is safe. It is from the poor man's hut alone, that strength and virtue come; and yet, on the other side, it is alleged that labor impairs the form, and breaks the spirit of man, and the laborers cry unanimously, "We have no thoughts." Culture, how indispensable! I cannot forgive you the want of accomplishment; and yet, culture will instantly destroy that chiefest beauty of spontaneousness. Excellent is culture for a savage; but once let him read in the book, and he is no longer able not to think of Plutarch's heroes. In short, since true fortitude of understanding consists "in not letting what we know be embarrassed by what we do not know," we ought to secure those advantages which we can command, and not risk them by clutching after the airy and unattainable. Come, no chimeras! Let us go abroad; let us mix in affairs; let us learn, and get, and have, and climb. "Men are a sort of moving plants, and, like trees, receive a great part of their nourishment from the air. If they keep too much at home, they pine." Let us have a robust, manly life; let us know what we know, for certain; what we have, let it be solid, and seasonable, and our own. A world in the hand is worth two in the bush. Let us have to do with real men and women, and not with skipping ghosts.
This, then, is the right ground of the skeptic,—this of consideration, of self-containing; not at all of unbelief; not at all of universal denying, nor of universal doubting,—doubting even that he doubts; least of all, of scoffing and profligate jeering at all that is stable and good. These are no more his moods than are those of religion and philosophy. He is the considerer, the prudent, taking in sail, counting stock, husbanding his means, believing that a man has too many enemies, than that he can afford to be his own; that we cannot give ourselves too many advantages, in this unequal conflict, with powers so vast and unweariable ranged on one side, and this little, conceited, vulnerable popinjay that a man is, bobbing up and down into every danger, on the other. It is a position taken up for better defense, as of more safety, and one that can be maintained; and it is one of more opportunity and range; as, when we build a house, the rule is, to set it not too high nor too low, under the wind, but out of the dirt
.
Wow, you can quote Emerson too. Sadly, you can't think for yourself. I am definitely a skeptic now.
Wow, you can quote Emerson too. Sadly, you can't think for yourself. [/quote]
That is an example of the logical flaw known as a "non sequitur."
A Skeptic wrote:
Wow, you can quote Emerson too. Sadly, you can't think for yourself.
That is an example of the logical flaw known as a "non sequitur."[/quote]
.
Clearly logical flaws are something are well-versed in.
the Real UncleB wrote:
A Skeptic wrote:Wow, you can quote Emerson too. Sadly, you can't think for yourself.
That is an example of the logical flaw known as a "non sequitur."
.
Clearly logical flaws are something are well-versed in.[/quote]
That is what is called "hasty generalization."
Yes, I missed that time. I already knew what she looked sans clothing. I was disappoint that I had the best spot for a view and missed it.
A Skeptic wrote:
the Real UncleB wrote:That is an example of the logical flaw known as a "non sequitur."
.
Clearly logical flaws are something are well-versed in.
That is what is called "hasty generalization."[/quote]
.
I am so proud of you. Memorizing fallacies for your freshman philosophy class. Little Jimmy's all growed up.
the Real UncleB wrote:
A Skeptic wrote:.
Clearly logical flaws are something are well-versed in.
That is what is called "hasty generalization."
.
I am so proud of you. Memorizing fallacies for your freshman philosophy class. Little Jimmy's all growed up.[/quote]
Argumentum ad hominem.
A Skeptic wrote:
the Real UncleB wrote:That is what is called "hasty generalization."
.
I am so proud of you. Memorizing fallacies for your freshman philosophy class. Little Jimmy's all growed up.
Argumentum ad hominem.[/quote]
.
No really, I am proud of you. If any prepackaged arguments come your way, you'll hit them right out the park. Hopefully when you get to those advanced philosophy classes, they will teach you how to think instead of rip out trite observations.
No really, I am proud of you. If any prepackaged arguments come your way, you'll hit them right out the park. Hopefully when you get to those advanced philosophy classes, they will teach you how to think instead of rip out trite observations.[/quote]
Okay, I don't know why you wanted to bust my balls about my handle, but I've had a good time. I'm done though for now. Have a Happy Hannukah!
A Skeptic wrote:
No really, I am proud of you. If any prepackaged arguments come your way, you'll hit them right out the park. Hopefully when you get to those advanced philosophy classes, they will teach you how to think instead of rip out trite observations.
Okay, I don't know why you wanted to bust my balls about my handle, but I've had a good time. I'm done though for now. Have a Happy Hannukah![/quote]
.
Yeah, it was fun. Who actually comes here to talk about running anymore anyway. Merry Christmas.
This is the stuff of my dreams. Unless you're under the age of 16. Then I'm just mildly amused.
pics?