WheelsRCool

You could say that about things like Lambos or firearms ownership. For example: "I can maybe understand someone owning a gun for self-defense, but any guy who owns ten guns, it is a just a penis thing and insecurity on his part." "Only men with small ones drive big SUVs or pickup trucks."

The dogs above can very much be confused with being pitbulls, along with other dogs, to the detriment of the dogs as it then leads them to get treated in the wrong fashion. And yes, sometimes bulldogs can be confused as well. And my point about the beagle versus the "pitbull" is that it oftentimes is mistreatment of the dog that makes them aggressive, not anything inherent in the dogs themselves. In the case of our beagle, we did not mistreat him (the total opposite), but we didn't know how to raise him properly either and as I said, he turned out to be rather mental. Again, there is no such thing as a "breed" of pitbull. All that would mean is that the dogs labeled as pitbulls that are bred for aggression and/or treated wrongly make up the largest share of the attacks. It does not mean that there is anything inherently violent in the dogs labeled as pitbulls as there is no such thing technically as a "pitbull." Black men also commit the majority of violent crimes, obviously it doesn't mean there is anything inherently violent about being black. It has to do with other factors. With dogs labeled as "pitbulls," it's no different. If a "pitbull" dog attacks, it either was mistreated or is one of the breeds labeled as "pitbull" that comes from a breeder who has focused on violence, which as I said, some started doing. And none of those beagle attacks would have been mine because mine didn't disfigure me. Again, no such thing as a "breed" of pitbull. It refers to a number of different breeds. I had nothing to do with the selection of the dog at the time, as I was only around ten or eleven years-old.

They do not have any locking jaws, their jaws are no different than any other dog. As for breeding them to be killers, that only started recently with certain breeds labeled as "pitbulls" and thus you just have to watch what breeder you get them from. Others are specifically bred to be very friendly. I agree though that there are unfortunately a portion of lunkheads that get them precisely because they think they are aggressive and want that aggressive aspect.

That's actually not true. For example, the American Staffordshire Terrier and the American Pit Bull Terrier are two different breeds but look rather identical, to the point that sometimes experts have trouble distinguishing the two. Both are generally labeled as "pitbulls," but the Staffordshire Terrier was bred for friendliness and playfulness. Both breeds have a common ancestor that was used for fighting and hunting, but that generally ended in the 1800s and then they became known as great family dogs. However, around the 1990s, some started breeding dogs like the Pit Bull Terrier for fighting. The Pit Bull Terrier is itself generally very friendly from what I understand, but unfortunately now some are aggressive because of people breeding them for aggressiveness to fight. It is important to get one from a licensed, known breeder that breeds for friendliness. Another dog often labeled as a "pitbull" is the American Bully, which is a fantastic family dog and very loving. "Pitbull" usually refers to about four breeds, but there are some breeds that have no genetic linkage to the dogs labeled as "pitbulls" that still look similar, and thus often also get labeled as a pitbull. For example, the Presa Canario. The Presa Canario is a mastiff dog, but it looks similar to dogs labeled as pitbulls, and also can be aggressive as it is bred to be a guard dog and hunting and working dog: Also the Cane Corso: The Dogo Argentino is another one, a mastiff and hunting dog, not bred for fighting. People don't think much of Rottweilers or Dobermans, but they can be aggressive if not socialized and raised properly. However there isn't the concern about them like with "pitbulls" because there aren't the stories of attacks from them. Dogs labeled arbitrarily as "pitbulls" can be very friendly and loving dogs that are excellent with little children. A lot of times, it just depends on how the dog is raised and socialized and all that. When I was little, we had a purebred beagle named Snoopy. (one of these) Snoopy was a bit mental (probably as a result of his being a purebred) and was HIGHLY aggressive. You had to be very careful taking him for walks because if you encountered another dog, he'd try to start a fight with it. He also was very guard dog-like in his behavior. We unfortunately were idiots and didn't know to have him neutered and how to raise him and all that. One day he did something wrong and I spanked him. He responded by almost tearing out my eye (I was extremely lucky as somehow he missed the actual eyeball). He knew he'd done wrong however afterwards, but he still was prone to aggressiveness and we had to have him put down. Now people don't generally think of beagles as aggressive, but if Snoopy had been any of the breeds that look like a pitbull with his behavior, I guarantee you people would have associated it with the supposed aggressiveness of "pitbulls." In reality, it was just a fault of how he'd been raised and his breeding, even though he was one of the "harmless" dog breeds. In fact, had he been one of the actual "pitbull" breeds, he might never have had that aggressiveness problem.

Whether there is something to the genetics of a "pit bull" depends on the pit bull. "Pit bull" is an arbitrary term legally that goes by the cosmetics of the dog a lot of times. It literally is like the equivalent of an assault weapons ban but for dogs, and thus will outlaw the dogs based on appearance while having nothing to do with actual behavior. There is no official pitbull "breed." Rather, certain breeds are referred to as pitbulls. Some of these breeds were specifically bred for fighting but others are not and are very friendly, but look similar.

I agree with Fortis.

Haven't seen the film yet, but not very interested in it after "The Last Jedi." Also to me, Han Solo is Harrison Ford and that's that. IMO, the reason Star Wars has gone into the crapper, at least with "The Last Jedi," is the political agenda of the people heading the franchise. I thought "The Force Awakens" and "Rogue One" were great however. I don't know if it is legitimate franchise fatigue, or fan backlash over "The Last Jedi," that sank Solo. I would somewhat disagree that Disney is "playing it safe" with the new Star Wars movies. I was rather shocked for example by the planet destruction scene in "The Force Awakens," when the First Order destroys those Republic planets. To me, that was a very violent scene, like the Star Wars equivalent of watching people get nuked. I remember in the theater thinking to myself, "Wow, this is almost a little too violent for Star Wars..."

Just saw it, WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED!?! They had such a great setup with "The Force Awakens" IMO, so many things they could have explored, and instead they absolutely destroy it. IMO this film should be stricken from the canon. It is worse than all three prequels. So I am going to write a typical Wheels post (i.e. looong) and explain my pet peeves: My pet-peeves: 1) The Empire in the original trilogy were portrayed as highly competent and professional. Yes, the Stormtroopers always were rather amateurish, but the officer corps was always portrayed as very professional. They were not cartoonish or anything like that. In this however, the continuation of the Empire, i.e. the First Order, is portrayed as a comical caricature. Which makes it hard to root for the heroes, because they face no real struggle. For example, in "Avatar," you really root for the heroes and are happy when they win because they are against such a tough and competent opponent (the RDA forces). In this film however, you almost are tempted to root for the First Order given the arrogance and incompetence of the rebel leadership. The film should have had a sad ending IMO, with the Rebels really knocked down after a major battle, making way for the third film where they will fight their best against the encroaching First Order to stop the spread of evil. 2) The Rebel leadership. So we have Admiral/General Leia and her Vice-Admiral Holdo, #TheForceIsFemale #Feminism #MenSuck liberal arts-women's studies-college professor-supposed military commander. The rebel fleet has been reduced to 400 people and three ships, and so a woman with pink hair in a flowing evening gown is to be the commander to save everybody. This to me would be like if they had a male commander who was dressed in a T-shirt and board shorts. It is just silliness. With leadership like this, no wonder they are down to three ships and 400 people. So her plan is to not tell anyone the plan she has, which could be a bad idea because at 400 people and three ships, could cause a mutiny maybe if some think it is suicidal? Then she tells the one guy whose leadership and loyalty she actually needs to buzzer off, as he is too reckless in his behavior (such a man must be put into place by a smart woman). Which he was, but her behavior there was still IMO stupid as he is also the best pilot they have, one of the best in the galaxy, and a major leadership figure. So then when he discovers her plan and says it will fail as the First Order will just destroy their ships, she could have said to him, "That won't happen, as the ships will be cloaked." Instead, she says nothing and then he starts the mutiny. THEN, later on, when they are executing the plan (after she has retaken control), she stands there and let's about half the shuttles get destroyed before hyperspacing the ship into the First Order. Which leads to... 3) Hyperspace weaponization: That just changes everything. I mean if you can use a ship in hyperspace as a weapon, then what was the original point of the Death Stars? Why not just build giant projectile ships with hyperdrive and use them as weapons? 4) Poe's recklessness: Poe is portrayed as totally reckless. All of the male characters are essentially inept and/or reckless and need to be controlled by the women in order to not end up blowing everything up. 5) Everyone's ineptness: So for The First Order, if large capital ships can literally be taken out by a single fighter and a bomber, why even build them at all? OR, why not immediately deploy massive fighter screens to protect them? But we are to believe that a massive dreadnought ship can be taken out by a single little fighter and a slow, lumbering bomber. And then there's the fact that Finn and Rose can escape undetected by The First Order to go try to find the hacker guy. In which case, that means that everyone could just escape. The Rebels could launch one shuttle every ten minutes say, and completely escape under The First Order's nose. The Rebels also could have just scattered their ships in three different directions, instead of keeping them altogether. 6) Admiral Ackbar's death: One of the greatest secondary characters in the franchise, and he just gets blown out into space and that's that, and not even as a close-up, just in the background. 7) Leia's new Force powers: As Han said in "The Force Awakens," "That's not how the Force works!" 8) Rey: So there is no growth at all for her and she is perfect. Great mechanic, great pilot, great Jedi, needs no training with a lightsaber, etc...Luke had to train hard, thought he was ready, went and battled Vader, got his butt kicked, then had to recoup and try again. Rey, on the other hand, has absolutely no struggle. No journey. And since her parents were nobodies, there's no real plot development for her either. 9) Snoke's being so easily killed and no background given on him 10) Luke's new Force powers, that enable him to show up and kiss Leia on the head, but then he is otherwise just a mirage when Kylo is trying to kill him. And also, why didn't he bother to tell anyone that it was just a trick, so that they didn't just all stand there until the First Order figured it out and then killed them anyway? Instead he leaves it for them to figure out on their own. 11) Rose's stunt of "rescuing" Finn. For one, she could have killed him in doing that, or both of them, and two, she then gives that absurd statement, "Wars aren't won by destroying those you hate, but by defending those you love." Well for one, that's what Finn was trying to do! And now maybe they would all die because of her. 12) Phasma: What is the point of her? She seems to have no plot contribution and no real skillset even. 13) Kylo Ren: His first appearance in "The Force Awakens" and he is bad-ass, a new villain, super-awesome, especially how he stops that blaster bolt in mid-air like that when Poe tries to shoot him. Then later he takes off his mask, which removes some of the bad-assery (for example if Vader had taken off his mask half-way through "A New Hope," I doubt he'd have seemed as bad-ass throughout the rest of the trilogy as he was). But then he devolves into just being a whiny, spoiled-brat crybaby punk. Also, they tossed his character development out the door. In "The Force Awakens," when he first is interrogating Rey, and she asks, "Where are the others?" and he replies, "You mean the murderers, traitors, and thieves you call friends?" When you hear that, you think that something really bad must have happened to him in the past to turn him against everyone like that. But instead, it turns out that he is just a whiny evil punk because he's just a whiny evil punk. J.J. Abrams has accused haters of "The Last Jedi" as being racist and sexist, and I can understand this thinking in particular over the outcry that happened when Finn was first revealed as a black stormtrooper for "The Force Awakens." Me personally, I have no problem with women being leaders, or THE leaders, of the Rebels in the film, of a female main hero, and of the inclusion of more non-white characters. But I do have a problem with the liberal Social Justice Warrior-man-hating nonsense that was put into the film. It literally was like reverse sexism even IMO. All of this seems to be because Kathleen Kennedy is now the head of Lucasfilm and apparently is very lefty-liberal-feminist (there is a picture of her and some other women wearing T-shirts that say, "The Force Is Female") and Rian Johnson, who apparently shares all of these views and is thus being greenlighted to created a whole new trilogy from scratch. :crybaby2: :crybaby2:

Cake said that she talked to multiple experts and got two opinions. I was giving my own experience on the issue after much practice with it.

I don't know if one can literally change eye dominance, but I would say one can definitely make the other eye very proficient and equally shared with the other eye for dominance. I say this because I have done it. I have for years had sort of an obsession with making both sides ambidextrous, arms, hands, legs, and eyes. This has resulted in that I have been able to make the left eye the first eye that "takes over" on things as opposed to the right eye, even though I am naturally right eye-dominant. That said, the right eye is still more hardwired, where if I let it, it will easily take over again, whereas the left eye requires constant practice to keep it proficient. So my experience is that you can reduce the tendency of the dominant eye to dominate, but you will not be able to change the hard-wiring. You will need to keep the other eye practiced.

Did they ban all sunscreens or just certain ones? EDIT: Nevermind, just Googled, it said some sunscreens are banned.

Oh okay, well I didn't know you meant it as a joke (BTW, I am terrible at interpreting jokes). "Pooping in your pancakes" was just an expression, i.e. did I say or do something to rub you the wrong way that I am not aware of.

Lighten up, it was meant as a light-hearted statement. As for what I am talking about, you seem to have a rather snarky attitude towards me as of late, for example calling me the "Minister of Misinformation" the latest.

Ahh cripes, for some reason I had it in my head that he is 50, well he's "almost" 50 (according to his profile) so still counts I think. Also what's up with the lousy attitude as of late, did I poop in your pancakes or something and forget about it?

Roman looks good for 50. Could easily be 35 IMO.

........

Hoping for a good recovery for you. The times I've just sprained my back it makes every movement excruciating so I can only imagine how bad it is if you can't even move.

Not any expert, but could it maybe be a slipped disc? You shouldn't just be doing a light squat and then get injured like that. Have sprained my lower back before and it is terrible, you can't move anything without pain, but never so bad where I literally couldn't move period. And the sprains when I got them were from lifting an excessive amount.

Will the fractures heal or is it a permanent condition?

You probably are already doing this, but just in case, you are squatting with your toes pointed out about 45 degrees right? Do not squat with them pointed straight forward as that will put a lot more strain on your lower back. Hope all turns out well.

:iamwithstupid:

I went about 300 or so calories over my caloric maintenance level and was eating very cleanly when bulking. One thing that constantly amazed me was how I would put my body through the absolute ringer lifting-wise, then eating a ton of healthy food, sometimes almost force-feeding myself, but yet, then I'd wake up the next day feeling like a million bucks. I was increasing by about a pound a week. My abs were mildly visible when I first started and remained so while bulking, so I knew my fat was increasing at the same rate as the muscle, so my bodyfat percentage was mostly remaining the same.

Keep it up, George Hackenschmidt was able to squat 400 lbs into his 60s I believe. He was benching 150 lbs at 95 I think too.

Didn't know that, good to keep in mind. Everyone's body is different and what can hurt one person's body may not do anything to another's. For example, some people take up running and then their knees are soon injured. Whereas other people start running marathons in their 20s and still are into their 70s with no problems. Some people do heavy barbell squats no problem, others it injures their hips over time. One thing I have found with the shoulders to also be careful of is with pullups with your palms facing forward and military presses. With the pullups, the shoulder and rotator cuff may undergo excessive strain due to the way the pulling motion occurs and you could injure something. After having done this myself, I switched to doing pullups with the palms facing each other. I figure I can always add a little weight if I feel the biceps are contributing more than I want, and occasionally will do one set of regular pullups. Regarding the military press, a few things on that: 1) Don't necessarily lower the bar where it goes all the way down to your sternum. That is perfect form, and you can do it here and there, but over time, it can overstrain the shoulders. It is safer to just bring it down to your chin. 2) Don't try to keep your body 100% completely straight when pushing the bar overhead, because for many people (maybe most?), it is impossible to literally press a bar overhead without bending the upper-back at least a little, at least not without putting the shoulders under a LOT of strain. Now obviously, if you are turning it into a standing bench press, that is bad, but a slight bend is okay. 3) Be careful with overhead presses with the elbows flared out 90 degrees One thing that really can injure people badly over time is yoga. Everyone thinks of yoga as being the epitome of health but it has come out that quite a few famous yoga instructors have had to have hip replacements. Some of the stretches also can cause damage to the spine and glands and nerves in the region.

Okay, send me a check I understand not every entrepreneur uses their own money, but an investor or bank isn't going to give a guy with no business experience money right?