Jump to content

newtogolf

Established Member
  • Content Count

    12,309
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    50

Posts posted by newtogolf


  1. It wouldn't bother me, I wear noise cancelling headphones whenever I have to fly.  

    I started wearing headphones 5 - 6 years ago when I was forced to listen to a baby behind me cry the entire 5 hour flight.  

    I understand the pressure on airlines to allow cell phone use, some business people spend a lot of their time on flights where they are unable to communicate so it makes sense.  


  2. For people not seeking fame and wishing to sign up 1000's of random followers, it's easy to stop bullying, just make your profile private only to family and friends and require people request you as a friend.  if they "bully" or harass you, you simply unfriend them.  

    If your profile is public it's open for positive and negative comments, you can't expect the social media companies to edit much beyond what's considered hate speech.  


  3. 15 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

    Of course not. There is always going to be bullies on the internet, in our schools, where we work. Using the excuse that they exist so we should just accept them, or expect them, is not right and just enables them. 

    Just like we shouldn't expect it to go away, that will be impossible, but actually standing up to bullies will go along way to making it less likely for them to want to be an asshole. 

    No one, not even bullies, like to feel the peer pressure of being judged for their actions. All we do now is judge the victims for doing nothing wrong. 

    Voicing you opinion against the opinions of what someone else has said or believes is not bullying as long as those opinions are for constructive conversation or peaceful protest. 

    Hate speech, bullying, online stalking, ect... is not even close to the same thing. Putting yourself out on social media does not give people a free right to bully someone. 

    Not even Trump deserves to have someone stalk him online, bullying him with hate speech and threats. 

    Okay, so how do you stand up to bullies on social media, do you post a nasty comment back?  Do you report the post?  There's no accountability on social media, your account gets frozen you create a new one.  I know people that have at least two different facebook and instragram user names.  

    I don't support bullying in any way, in person or cyber.  I don't personally know anyone that's ever been bullied on social media.  I told my kids before we gave them permission to have social media accounts that they shouldn't put anything on social media that they wouldn't want their college admissions office or potential job interviewer to read because once it's out there, it doesn't go away.  My daughter posts about Islander games and music she likes.  My son hardly posts, he isn't big into social media at all.  

    If I posted a picture of myself in a thong I'd expect to get razzed pretty hard about it. 

    9 minutes ago, iacas said:

    No shit. But that's the point. Complacency or just accepting the status quo doesn't lead to anything changing for the better. It leads to, as Paige said, an increase in teen suicides. It leads to people continuing to bully people as they're doing now. It leads to exactly what we have now, or worse.

    The only solution is that Facebook and other social media sites have to have stricter terms of use policies and enforce the policies better once reported.  

    You and I agree, but we're not going to stop Paige from getting nasty comments written under her pictures.  


  4. 2 minutes ago, iacas said:

    Nope. But there's a line, and it's crossed far too often and far too easily, then excused because, after all, she's dressed "provocatively."

    I mostly agree with you, Paige should be able to post pictures of herself wearing whatever she like and ideally people would view and move on without the need to make nasty comments.  

    Unfortunately that's not the world we live in, social media is a breeding ground for cowards who hide behind their keyboard and say things they'd never have the guts to say to someones face.  We also all know the pro's and con's of participating in social media.  Facebook and Instagram are like the wild west compared to this site, when you put yourself out there, you have to expect to take some heat because there's no one moderating comments and posts like there is here.  


  5. 51 minutes ago, iacas said:

    Yeah, that's not this.

    C'mon, this shit needs to stop, and part of that needs to be that people need to stop making excuses for people who bully and act like assholes.

    If you don't like someone promoting themselves on social media, the only acceptable form of behavior is to not follow them. That's it.

    Anything else - any excuse-making or anything like that - is victim blaming, and is part of the problem.

    You believe someone can put themselves out in the public eye via social media wearing provocative outfits or having provocative/controversial opinions and they should only expect praise and kudos, nothing negative?  

    If that's the case then Obama, Trump and Clinton are all victims of cyber bullying.  What separates a Paige Spiranac from a Brandel Chamblee, Tiger Woods or Hank Haney who have been ripped pretty hard on this site at times?  

    What's the line between criticizing / voicing opinion and bullying (obviously death threats and wishing someone would commit suicide is bullying)?


  6. It's not acceptable.  No one should be bullied and if her life was threatened or someone wished her dead she has every right to speak out.  

    When you put yourself out there on social media and dress and pose in a provocative manner you have to expect to be called out, critiqued and maybe have your true intentions questioned.  

    There's a fine line in society right now, men are frequently accused of objectifying women but isn't that the intent when a woman posts pictures of herself wearing minimal clothing?  She's not posting her golf swing or anything golf related, she's objectifying herself to self clothing and/or gain followers / popularity on social media.  


  7. 13 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

    I've always taken the firm stance that if I have or plan to drink at all, even one drink, I will not drive. Too many people I am related to or am friends with have gotten DUIs for me to think it's worth any chance. Besides that, I like to drink stuff with much higher alcohol. I understand that people like to have a drink or two while they are out, and as long as they know their limits and are able to stay in a safe driving capacity I don't mind. Unfortunately, a lot of people think they are "OK" when they aren't. Increasing the threshold for a ticket isn't going to change it for the better, it'll just make people think they can drink more and still be fine. However, someone who is fine at .06 may not be fine at .09 leading to an accident. So, to me, raising the limit has way more negative possibilities than anything.

    Someone who has been drinking is the least qualified of all to determine how capable they are of driving.  I've had drunk friends tell me they don't feel a thing then watched them stagger to get another beer.  I'm not sure if it's ego or delusion but drunks never like to admit they're drunk.  


  8. 17 minutes ago, inthehole said:

    Funny, as someone who's played close to 600 rounds over the past 6 years since I started playing, I have never had any interest in playing competitively.    I think it reflects your personality - some are more social or competitive ... golf to me is a personal quest to see how good I can get.     My most enjoyable golf is when I'm the only one on the course, it's quiet, and I can focus 100% on my game.   It's therapeutic.    Don't get me wrong, I try like hell to get the best out of my game and the body I have left, but it's never been a competitive thing for me. (unless I'm playing my one coworker who's 20 years younger and an avid golfer (hits it 50 yds past me) & really wants to beat me ... I love playing my control game and cleaning his clock ... LOL)

    Golf is a personal quest that can be very social and interactive through it.  Another extension of finding out how good you can get is to see how good your game is under the pressure of competition.  I have always strived for personal improvement but like the increased intensity of competition, whether it be in the form of a marathon or golf tournament.  


  9. 39 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

    You've left off the "money" variable. Money changes everything. There are huge dollars in Pharma, so there will always be a battle between the researchers and the finance department. Same with pesticides, big money and less will go towards research. Profits drive the releases.

    Research takes time. Data collection is expensive. Data doesn't have feelings. Data isn't liberal or conservative. It is just data. The more you have, that is collected with sound scientific methods, the better the model will be for safety, predictions, etc.

    There are also huge dollars in denying the affect humans have on climate change. I feel that is the primary motivation behind the deniers. They are not arguing the math per se. They want to keep the status quo so their bottom line improves, so they fit their model that way.

    I said in my first statement, it's about "money and politics"  I'm fully aware of the impact of money and now politics which is why I don't fully trust science. 


  10. 51 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

    For any other discipline other than Climate Science, I would totally be in agreement with you.  

    Read a couple of these and you might change your mind on whether being skeptical on climate change will allow you to keep your funding. 

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/12/03/extreme-weather-expert-dr-roger-pielke-jr-my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic/

    https://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/

    There are others who have been ostracized by not going the climate change dogma.

     

    But it's not just climate change.  Look hard enough at "science" and you'll find in many cases it's about money and politics, not science.  How did businesses get approval to add tiny plastic balls to tooth paste, face scrubs, etc and no one in science figured out before hand that these plastic balls wouldn't get filtered out at waste treatment plants and kill fish?  

    How about all the drugs that have been released and deemed safe by scientists only to be recalled due to severe side effects.  How about pesticides that were developed by science that have been banned.  

    Science wants to be about facts but usually the best they get to is theory based on available data.  


  11. I used to be a personal trainer though I was certified over 25 years ago, I've kept up with weight lifting, running etc.  I believe 12-13 is the average consensus age to begin weightlifting.  Ideally the workouts should be higher rep and lower weights to avoid injury.  I started lifting free weights when I was 12 never had any issues from it. 

    As others suggest, I'd talk to a doctor as they can give you a better idea of where your child is in terms of their growth potential.  


  12. 15 minutes ago, iacas said:

    I'd take your money and then do what I wanted. :-)

    I get the realities but I don't think scientists are as quick to cave on their scientific morals as you do.

    I tend to be a realist with pessimist leanings when it comes to humanity and self interest, so point taken.  

    I don't always believe it's the scientists that cave on their scientific morals as much as it is they aren't in a position to do much because of business interests, politics, etc.  


  13. 43 minutes ago, iacas said:

    Scientists are taught to buck the established thinking and so on. There's less pressure on scientists to "conform." They are constantly challenging things. It's a big part of what makes me the way I am as a golf instructor. Scientists are, by their very nature, skeptics. They want to test things, get their own data, etc.

    Yes, they build off others, but if they discover that the foundation on which they're building their research has holes, they look to rip it apart and either plug the holes or disassemble the whole thing.

    A cartoonist is no more qualified to speak on what "pressures" scientists face than a scientist is on what's funny in a cartoon strip.

    I agree that's how it works, but most scientist depend on grant money or are work for businesses that do have an agenda.  Science is big business today and many scientists will compromise their ethics to avoid going hungry and homeless.  

    If I came to you and offered you a million dollars to teach me to swing a golf club like Moe Norman or Jim Furyk would you accept even though your primary teachings and philosophy don't focus on individual swings philosophies but common keys?  


  14. 1 hour ago, phillyk said:

    I say whatever.  I mean, if you hit out of a bunker, you should rake to the best of your ability.  But don't get all pissy because someone forgot to.  Do you get the same way if you plug? Hey greens keeper, what the heck are you doing making it this soft so that I plug?! No.  A bunker is a hazard, you are never guaranteed to have a "good" lie.  Heck, you are not guaranteed a good lie if you hit the fairway.  Sometimes that ball ends up in a fat divot.  Hit the shot and move on.

    I agree, common courtesy says rake the bunker, but this was obviously an oversight and not intentional.  What was Stevie going to do when he found the guy, what a jackass.  

    If you don't want to hit out of a footprint, don't hit it in the bunker.  


  15. 56 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

    I think the issue is that with a high majority of scientist believe humans have influenced the climate. A good percentage of those people believe humans have had a significant impact. These are people who know more than we will ever do. It probably can be said that it is a fact that humans have influenced climate for the worse. Denying these basic facts is just idiotic.

    I have no issue with people debating what policy should be done to help correct this. Outright denial of facts should not be done.

    I think the issue is that with a high majority of scientist believe humans have influenced the climate. A good percentage of those people believe humans have had a significant impact. These are people who know more than we will ever do. It probably can be said that it is a fact that humans have influenced climate for the worse. Denying these basic facts is just idiotic.

    This is incorrect. Are there more people who are for us reducing our impact on the climate, sure. Are there more spokespeople, sure. They have a more clearer and louder voice because scientist have proven that we have had a pretty bad impact on climate. It's tougher for the people who don't want to believe in climate change because now they are trying to fight facts not opinions.

    If you've read my posts here I'm not a "denier" but I'm not a "believer" either.  I'm 51 years old and I can tell you first hand, over the course of my life I've learned science isn't always right. What science claims is "fact" is really "best theory at the time".  There was a time when science said it was "fact" that the earth was cooling.  Then science said it was a fact it was "warming up"  now they've hedged their bets and say it's "changing".  

    The science that predicts our weather is barely 50% accurate, the science that tells us in one study caffeine/wine/meat is good for us tells us it's not in another.  Science can't get it wrong so often then tell us on this one issue it's fact.   

    I have read enough "science" to accept that excessive amounts of CO2 is not good for our planet that is having it's forest land reduced and water bodies compromised.  I don't believe science has it right but I do believe that there are and will be adverse effects to the future of life (not the planet) if we don't as individuals make some changes to how we spend our time on the planet. 

    I've stated in previous posts that I believe as individuals we have a responsibility to not be reckless with our planet, to not pollute, to conserve when feasible, basic win/win initiatives.  Before I go making some really hard or costly sacrifices the world needs to "buy in" to the "science".  China and India need to not just stop building coal burning power plants but shut some down, governments need to push to create nuclear plants because they produce the cleanest power.  The UN needs to step in and establish policies the world must abide by if this as is serious a problem as science claims.

    I'm not a kid, telling me to do as they say and not as they do doesn't work for me anymore but as a responsible adult I'll do what makes sense anyway.


  16. 1 minute ago, Gunther said:

    A bit concerned that it appears Ivanka wants to make this her signature issue.  She went so far as to meet with Gore today, of all people.  Hopefully this is just an appeasement play, although I hate those too.  

    No time or money to chase this down a rabbit hole over the next 4 years.  Too many far more pressing issues to solve.

    A good management team addresses short term and long term issues.  At some point those long term issues become short term problems.  

    I see nothing wrong with Ivanka looking at environmental issues, she has young children and the climate change should be a concern for her.  I do question her selecting Al Gore as the person to reach out to but that's off topic.  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...