Ragnarok

Imagine if MLP was actually intended to an adult harem show under the pretense of being a show targeted towards little girls.

Pulmonary hypertension means that she is possibly going to be taking alpha or beta blockers. If the blood pressure is the result of atherosclerosis then the doctor may describe her to take a statin like Lipitor (atorvastatin) or Crestor (rosuvostatin),

Yup, that about sums it up, lol

Sorry, I added a bit more to the initial post.

Still, no one here would dare do that IRL, no one. They try to look badass over the internet, that's it

Herd behavior describes how individuals in a group can act together without planned direction. The term pertains to the behavior of animals in herds, flocks, schools, demonstrations, riots and general strikes,^[1] sporting events, religious gatherings, episodes of mob violence and everyday decision-making, judgment and opinion-forming.

- Wikipedia

Looking badass implies that you think that each individual who posted tried to post with the intention of seeming like a big badass. In other words, elevating themselves based on metrics of violence and apathy as a means to extend an intimidating image for others to observe. I don't think that this is the case since the internet badass tends to be singular, one person who tries to show off to many people in order to make himself seem intimidating. However, in this case the status quo of the tone is what intimidating things you would do to the person that killed a loved one. In this sense, there is no point in showing off how vicious you can be to another person because everyone else is doing the same. What would be more profound is if someone tried to be logical or rational in this hypothetical situation and criticizing others for playing into it.

I'm fairly sure that some of the people in this thread have lost their fucking minds, either that or they're under the "Internet Badass Syndrome"

People were likely being guided by the tone in the opening post.

When I read The Chamber by John Grisham, I learned that if you really want someone to repent all of their crimes and learn how valuable life is, put them in a 6'x9' cell, for as long as you want, and let them understand that there will come the day in which they will be executed.

The feeling of waking up to the sight of the same cell to wear the same clothes and only to realise you are approaching your set date of death is worse than any other torture.

I believe that solitary confinement in prison would make one realize the value of life. However, I doubt that you could ever make them repent for the actual crime they committed. Imprisonment enforces compliance by placing a harsh disincentive on committing crimes that harm a collective society: murder, theft, rape, ect. However, this process does little to make the prisoners reevaluate their values, morals, ethics, or virtues when it comes to life. I don't think that punishment alone is an insufficient stimulus to make one actually realize what they did was fundamentally wrong and then to emotionally feel bad that they had punished someone else (the first step). It's not repentance if they regret being in prison, that's simply negative reinforcement behavior training that is also used on animals and repeated based on instinct.

Thanks for explaining this for me I should have said that not all painkillers have caffeine, but a lot do. Not always strong ones, though. Here in the Netherlands we have a weak painkiller called paracetamol (Don't know if it is called the some in other countries). It's the most used painkiller in the Netherlands, and as far as I know, it contains caffeine. 

Paracetamol is the INN, in our country it's referred to as acetaminophen. Paracetamol itself cannot contain caffeine because they are both distinct chemical molecules. The chemical structure of paracetamol and caffeine are depicted respectively in the cartoons below:

@@Krosp I had been making the point of painkillers containing caffeine in the sense that companies create formulations. I tried to look up Netherland's over the counter medications (medications you could obtain without a doctor's approval) however I couldn't find any, but a good example would be the brand Excedrin and their product Tension Headaches which contains: 500 mg of acetaminophen formulated with 65 mg of caffeine. This medication contains two distinct drug molecules in one capsule. Both of which should have for the most part their chemical structure preserved in order to maintain their effect on the human body.

In my defense. I was born this way.

I'm pretty sure that our current generation has the weakest grip over reality given the escalating dependence on psychiatric prescription medication.

Rainbow Dash can be loyal to herself, she can be loyal to her friends, or she can be loyal to the Wonderbolts. The episode was wagging the finger at her for trying to appease all three loyalties at once.

 

Loyalty is showing to be the most restrictive and demanding out of the 6 elements while her character is naturally meant to be free.

Beautiful post. Thank you.

Well, let's look at the definition of loyalty:

 

"A strong feeling of support or allegiance."

 

Keeping that in mind, would it make sense for Rainbow Dash to do something that would separate her from the rest of the Mane Six? I don't think it would, but I could be wrong.

I believe that the first video in the opening post wanted to question what RainbowDash's loyalty is being attributed towards. It points out that Ponyville as a whole had no interest in the games and that RainbowDash's teammates were clearly in this event just to be there. Contrast this to the Cloudsdale team that appear to have invested a lot more effort into this and are more serious about winning in comparison. 

On the point of loyalty itself, it is amusing when you consider RainbowDash being super competitive and having a desire to join the Wonderbolts. In a broad sense this episode highlights competing loyalties between fulfilling her aspirations v. her committment to friendship. If you choose to look at loyalty in the immediate sense, her element came from Ponyville and her element is part of the team, then it really ties her down with her present allegiances. However, when the party you associate with does questionable things like sending a questionable team to the games and having no one take it seriously, then continuing to endorse them becomes a point of nationalism or friend bias, rather than a point of friendship.

The Wonderbolts needed to be rude in order to justify RainbowDash coming to the defense of her friends. However, such a tactic is one that we often see in wars in which the other side is painted as inhumane or amoral in order to help soldiers see their enemies as being less-human and having less qualms about killing them in warfare. When you work in any industry you deal with big personalities and negotiating with them while maintaining a work relationship with them is something you never see anymore because that takes real tolerance, understanding, and compassion. It needs to be stated that real working friendships are always strained by work commitments, other friends, and sometimes just doing your best isn't good enough.

It needs to be understood that the first video approaches My Little Pony from an adult perspective. The video talker discusses that the decision would be "ok" to consider from a perspective that friendships can still exist and need to be compromised because they should be supported by people who want you to succeed and not the other way around. This is not a point of view that most children would understand because they haven't pursued their aspirations or have had to deal with compromise on a multi-level. Therefore the twist that RainbowDash would join the Wonderbolts was simply a development that would never happen because the show isn't geared towards an older population. It is geared towards children while having mature overtones.

If the Debate Pit is to serve as a type of containment for users/topics, then I think it has some short comings.

First and foremost, I can't access the Debate Pit due to my low post count. From my perspective, the Debate Pit seems more like an added perk to contributing users rather than a safeguard or containment unit. Personally speaking, I'm primarily a lurker and join on sites when I see something that upsets me or motivates me to respond back. I would like to think that newer users should be the ones where containment is geared towards rather than veteran users who are accustomed to the site and therefore less prone to starting fights where they should not occurr.

Second, if the Debate Pit were to function as an actual containment sub-forum it would be largely ineffective. This is mostly because when a debate begins in a given thread, it is often not involving the majority of the people who have contributed to the thread but rather involving two individuals going back and forth over a point of contention. Moving the entire thread to the Debate Pit because of two individuals would compromise the fact that the rest of the thread primarily is not a debate and was not supposed to be in the first place. The more effective action would be to contain the two or more users who agree to disagree, therefore allowing the regular thread to proceed as normal.

In consideration of this, I feel like people who are mature enough to disagree with one another yet have the patience to listen to each other would consider visitor messages or private messages. Making a separate thread in the Debate Pit seems excessive. Unruly arguments are prone to moderators using infraction, probation, and lock-down measures to keep the thread under control rather than jettisoning it off to Deep Space.

I understand how the Debate Pit can function as a psychological deterrent. If you give someone an arena where they can voice their argumentative side, then that user feels less repressed and less likely to unleash that side in other places. However, a big part of using the Debate Pit in this capacity primarily relies on the user themselves to have the maturity to recognize that their own content will be a conflict. After realizing this, they also must consider how their post will affect everyone else and should make a decision of the whole rather than themselves. If a user is mature enough to suppress their own urges to this extent, then they should have sufficient will power to reconstruct their post into an effective pro-discussion post rather than an illogical fallacy or derail to the opening thread.

I think that when we consider the Debate Pit to be a containment field, we have admitted that the sub-forum is in a sense flawed. It is not something effective in its own right to spawn ideas and mesh out thoughts, but rather a detractor from the rest of the forums. Resorting a sub-forum as a means to an end intereferes with its utility to be seen as useful in itself. Someone raised the point that debate itself can be an effective process of meshing or solidying ones own thought process. However, I don't believe that if the popular sentiment is that the Debate Pit is a sort of containment unit that people will still retain such an interest. Rather, they would want to post in the thread to a relevant audience that has made relevant posts on the topic. No one wants to be contained, ostracized, or isolated. They just want to be heard.

I don't identify with sub-fourms like the Debate Pit because I personally don't understand debating itself as a motivator. I personally find it more interesting to understand other people, how they work, and why they do the strange things that they do or get into the jams they find themselves in. The two aren't mutually exclusive when it comes to conversation, however as an underlying motivator I haven't reached a point where I post anything with the belief that I'm right and in the know. If I believed that then I probably wouldn't be curious about getting feedback from anonymous individuals all over about what they think.

If this isn't representative of what the Debate Pit is then I apologize. I understand that I'm arguing against a personal conception rather than an actual piece of work because I don't have access to it. However my intention was not to attack a straw man. Rather question the underlying purpose of what areas like the Debate Pit really serve and whether this function is unique enough to merit it being kept to itself.

I have to be vary cautious about what I post otherwise I might accidentally give away the dead bodies of the people I've killed and other important information that I may regret later on if people actually decide to take an interest in what I have to say.

I was highly upset with the movie because I felt that it wasn't an advocate for the source content which was the book. The movie was a fraud of the original, presenting the scenes however without the underlying intent and inner meaning the actions are supposed to hold. And when you simply look at the end and don't bother to look at the means, methods, reasons, and motivations the characters go through in order to work out their complicated life at Battle School then you've lost the end of Ender's Game. It is Ender's ability to emphathize others that is central to his ability to command and also an integral part of what makes him a 'genius.' The joy of Ender's Game is being able to see the mind at work rather than simply stare at Harrison Ford gasp in awe at the manifestations of an unprecedented genius.

Hi I'm new to the forums and I am glad to be here and hope to have a fun time here. Something you should know about me is that I tend to be a bit mischivious and I have a side of me that can't help but horse around at times. I love pulling pranks on people, but the people I prank are people I want to get to know better and I pinkie pie promise that there are no sinister intentions behind my jokes. If you are ever offended then please let me know so I can address the problem appropriately, I don't want to make any pony an unhappy one. My favorite MLP episode is the Canterlot Wedding two parters. I still think there is so much potential for Queen Chrysalis and the changelings. Other than that I hope I get to know the people on this site better and possibly get into some RP'ing while I'm here. ;3

Sprawls body across floor with hands outstretched as he prepares himself for intense flogging of very graphical nature.

U.S. prosecutors filed criminal charges against Edward Snowden U.S. officials said on Friday according to The New York Times and Wall Street Journal. Snowden has answered in sources such as the Guardian that he leaked documents exposing surveillance programs to spark a world-wide debate about U.S. anti-terrorism tactics. He came forward because he believed President Barack Obama, 'deepended and expanded several abusive programs' instead of promoting transparency. (See Reference: Patriot Act.)

Criminal charges include theft of government property were filed in federal court allowing U.S. authorities to begin steps to try to return Mr. Snowden to the United States. These steps include issuing an Interpol red notice to stop him from traveling. Snowden who is believed to currently be in Hong Kong presently occupies a diplomatic quandry as Beijing is responsible for handling Hong Kong's foreign affairs and can veto surrender requests from Hong Kong in cases related to defense, foreign affairs, and other issues therefore providing an exception to the Hong Kong-U.S. treaty for exchange of political dissidents between the two geo-political territories.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323893504578560071189477346.html

I've always wanted to get accustomed to Linux, but mind you I've never really developed a need for it. GUI based operating systems are just incredibly easy to grasp and given browser extensions like Adblock and Noscript, I haven't really had any malware issues on any system. I've been satisfied with most free app extensions available for Windows, Mac, and Android operating systems. Although I don't really use my computer much outside of email and word processing.

You should also consider joining Alcoholics Anonymous and if you have a drug addiction there are programs out there too for you to get support from others. Even though it's hard to find someone who has the same problems as you do on the internet and in group therapy, its a common part for most of us to have bad coping mechanisms. I'd suggest doing in-person therapy because I feel that there a limit to how much support you can get from an internet community. When you're trying to change something that you've become dependent on, it is hard to deal with its absence. To make a change in life you sometimes need all the support you can get.

Critics have just been on a killing spree with their ratings for summer movies. The funny thing is that if you thumb through the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, most of the commentary is just objectively unjustified or unwarranted. Yes, Man of Steel is not Superman Returns, why are you criticizing a transition in execution when the directors are different? Oh the Man of Steel was produced by Christopher Nolan. Yes, Christopher Nolan directed The Dark Knight series, it was great. Yes, Man of Steel is not The Dark Knight Returns or Inception. Why are we using these two films as comparison when the source materials are so drastically different. Ridiculous.

If people are interested, here is a link to the paper involving Collatz Theory: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1us2i5raOGAltDAYv4CMVxTxvNvEeINPkhD0TUbEPtcE/edit?usp=sharing

I don't agree with the application of Collatz Theory to genetics from the explanation given in the attached word document. First, the google document you linked doesn't specify the nature of the traits that is being analyzed. Are we looking at a graphical model of genotypic or phenotypic traits. And by what measure does the growth in the bars represent? Are the growth of the bars representative of say, increased phenotypic traits like an increase in the length of the talon of a bird? Or is it supposed to represent levels of transcription being comitted by DNA polymerase and being measured by RT-PCR (real time polymerase chain reaction). Semantics. Is it supposed to represent levels of genetic expression being doing on a molecular biological level wrt the given trait? To simplify, I don't know what was measured or displayed even though it was given that the quantity measured was somehow related to 'trait(s).'

Second, I want to address what was paraphrased to be a simple organism with four traits in the google document. it doesn't explain the organism used in the modeling approach. Isn't it important to detail which basic organism is being measured to verify the pragmatic efficacy of the application of the theory? Say for example that it was a bacteria, how does Collatz Theory handle large variations for a sudden influx in traits i.e. horizontal gene transfer in which another bacteria confers genetic information to another bacteria that may have not had any possession of these previous traits. Part of this is the reason why bacteria are able to rapidly become resistant to antiseptics and bactericides such as the rapid conferred resistance of MRSA in hospitals. What is graphically demonstrated is a very gradual model of adaptation and not one of drastic nature that would likely occur for a simple organisms that would initially possess only four traits. Then again, 'gradual' would be a subjective notion since there was no documented analysis time given on the graphical reference.

Third, the article doesn't stipulate whether Collatz Theory is better being applied on broad scale on a macro evolutionary perspective or charting a series of small adaptation modeling which tends to apply more towards concepts of micro evolution. If we're looking at heredity on individual crosses and applying Collatz Theory, how does the theory hold across different species. In plant varieties for instance, corn expresses overdominance when it is heterozygous for two alleles. Meanwhile other species may follow typical behavior for certain traits of the dominant allele having phenotypic dominance and masking the recessive allele there may be cases such as in floral varieties where colors such as pink exist due to codominance due to dual expression of a red and white allele simultaneously to create that color to the naked eye.  

The theory seems to be a very interesting push in the theoretical, however what's questionable in its application to reality such as its practicality and ability to map out what the paraphrased report claims to be evolutionary behavior and traits.

I don't agree with a reformed Gilda being another Rainbow Dash. In 'Griffon the Brush Off' the only part of her personality that was revealed was that she seems to be the type of person who has a very limited circle of friends and tends to have an obsessive sort of penchant towards keeping them exclusive. Looking at quotes from 'Twilight Sparkle and the Crystal Heart Spell' reinforces this as being a bad personality trait on her part:

"Twilight is a princess now, you guys! She's off to the Crystal Empire and doesn't need a bunch of silly Ponyville friends like you holding her back. She told me so herself. So leave her alone!"

Note that this isn't what would be reformed. Rather her tendency to exclude others would be something that she would be 'working on' in the course of the given episode. Redemption stories tend to be engaging because it shows how the villainous actions of the villain are a coping mechanism for something tragic that occured in their past or is a recurring issue with them currently. Even though I doubt something tragic would ever be a background reason for an MLP villain, it still has the potential to be interesting to see how the villain internalized the conflict and ended up resorting to the actions they took in the series. I don't think that Gilda would make a similar Rainbow Dash. I think that she would be someone who would be trying hard to make friends while dealing with her bad habit of keeping one friend exclusive from everyone else. That's a trait that I would never expect to see exhibited by Rainbow Dash and the only case where I saw anything relatable was in The Ticket Master which showed that such a premise could be interesting enough to be the premise for an entire episode.