Upload
Login or register

marinepenguin

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 20
Youtube Channel: Leonard2580
Steam Profile: Leonard2580
Consoles Owned: XBOX,PC
X-box Gamertag: LEONARDS6
Date Signed Up:1/24/2011
Last Login:7/01/2016
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#5692
Highest Content Rank:#647
Highest Comment Rank:#862
Content Thumbs: 11852 total,  13142 ,  1290
Comment Thumbs: 17886 total,  20586 ,  2700
Content Level Progress: 74% (74/100)
Level 206 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 207 Content: Comedic Genius
Comment Level Progress: 9.6% (96/1000)
Level 313 Comments: Wizard → Level 314 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:5
Content Views:419440
Times Content Favorited:1126 times
Total Comments Made:15292
FJ Points:5784
Favorite Tags: facebook (3) | shit (3) | dont (2) | Gay (2) | is (2) | You (2)

latest user's comments

#120779 - Source of the article anon posted? Just google EU superst…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/29/2016 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar
#120781 - thumbfortrump (06/29/2016) [-]
All I can find is polish state TV throwing a hissy fit. Nothing of substance at all.
#120778 - Yes, that's a good reason why democracy has worked so well for…  [+] (1 new reply) 06/29/2016 on Politics - politics news,... +1
User avatar
#120780 - whoozy (06/29/2016) [-]
Very well
#618 - I like how you had to specify "natty arms" because o…  [+] (10 new replies) 06/29/2016 on marinepenguin's profile 0
User avatar
#619 - studbeefpile (06/29/2016) [-]
Lol for real. Mandel is going to be pretty small for at least a while. K m d is pretty big tho.
User avatar
#620 - marinepenguin (06/29/2016) [-]
K knows his shit though. Mend is still an ego lifting kid who wants to just look big and didn't have the patience for any sort of natty gains. He's probably got as much lean mass as I do now, and he's just hurting his max potential for gains.
User avatar
#621 - studbeefpile (06/29/2016) [-]
Bro, not even. He's still pretty damn small.
User avatar
#622 - marinepenguin (06/29/2016) [-]
Yeah, plus I'm starting to get my shit together now. I spent all day putting together a new program and had my first deadlift/pull day today. Was sickening and it was easily the best workout I've had since I was back. I'm incorporating a lot of newer things I haven't done before.
User avatar
#623 - studbeefpile (06/29/2016) [-]
What's your program look like?
User avatar
#624 - marinepenguin (06/29/2016) [-]
Well I'm sticking with a basic p/p/l split so it's not a massive change at the basics.

But today was pull and I did:
DL 5x3
Weighted Pull-ups/negatives
DB shrugs w/ 3 second pause at top
Machine rows 4x12 w/ 3 second eccentric
Machine rear felt fly's 4x12 w/ 3 second eccentric
Decline curls 4x12
Decline Preacher curls 4x8-10

I'm putting a lot more emphasis on how I'm performing my reps and increasing my intensity by shortening rest periods as well. So I'm not changing a TON, but I'm definitely upping the tempo of my workouts a lot.
User avatar
#625 - studbeefpile (06/30/2016) [-]
"DL 5x3"

It's like you don't even care about making gains.
User avatar
#626 - marinepenguin (06/30/2016) [-]
It was a rep scheme that was shown and discussed on tnation that I hadn't tried. If it doesn't work I can easily swap it out.
User avatar
#627 - studbeefpile (06/30/2016) [-]
I guess. It just seems kinda pointless to do such low reps at the beginning of a program - especially since you need to pack some damn meat on those bones.
User avatar
#628 - marinepenguin (06/30/2016) [-]
That's why I have such volume on accessories with 5-6 days a week of total training.
#617 - Picture 06/29/2016 on marinepenguin's profile 0
#120773 - It's very simple. I think we can agree that power corrupts, an…  [+] (3 new replies) 06/29/2016 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar
#120775 - whoozy (06/29/2016) [-]
Power corrupts indeed, but this isn't an individual getting a huge amount of power like a dictator. We're talking about an elected government. With a big government power gets divided on more people. There is no absolute upper leader that can get what he wants without the support of the people.

Of course there is need to legislate these ideals. When someone is accused of breaking them he needs to get a proper trial, not a lynch mob. The government is an important part of every society. Not some evil overlord. You put people in charge with your vote just like you put coorperations in positions of power with your money. Some overarching power has to exist in order for a society to exist. Without a government society dissolves.

You seem so paranoid about the government, yet so trustworthy of the individual. The government is nothing more than a collection of individuals elected by individuals. It must be strong enough to protect the country from attackers, it must be strong enough to protect peoples rights from criminals and it must be strong enough to keep the country united.



User avatar
#120778 - marinepenguin (06/29/2016) [-]
Yes, that's a good reason why democracy has worked so well for us. But to assume that a democracy or representative government cannot become corrupt in equal amount given time is false. Electorates do not act in their own interests, they act within interest of party lines, which DO have leaders and upper officials who have sway over them.

We can keep going back and forth over all this.

The difference between us is that I have a distrust of government and power. I wouldn't go far to say I'm paranoid, because that implies my concerns are unwarranted or unsubstantiated, when there have been more tyrannical governments than not, and in the 20th century alone 150 million people were killed by their own leaders who only a generation or two before were fairly stable nations. And I think our policies should reflect suspicion of concentrated power.

So to conclude our discussion, we agree that globalization and the unity of humanity is going to he inevitable to a degree, we just disagree on what the role of government should be in this changing world society.
User avatar
#120780 - whoozy (06/29/2016) [-]
Very well
#120771 - As for if a state will be necessary in some form forever, that… 06/29/2016 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#120770 - In theory every political system works perfectly as it should,…  [+] (5 new replies) 06/29/2016 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar
#120772 - whoozy (06/29/2016) [-]
True. I just don't get why you insist that a big goverment would be corrupted. Removing the key central values that holds the union apart would be self destructive for the government.

Political union is a part of this, but we can disagree on this.

The government need to be powerful in order to maintain control. That's why it's the government. Just look at how powerful your own government is. Power remains in numbers i.e. the people. If nobody supports the government it falls. I don't want the state to have any more power than it does today. Power would still be divided. I'm not talking about a chinese government here.

They protect them. This already is the standard today. If you're attacked police should protect you. If someone steals something from you, the government needs to make sure the thief pays for the damages. We can't have a big wild west where the law is in every individuals hands. That's anarchy.
User avatar
#120773 - marinepenguin (06/29/2016) [-]
It's very simple. I think we can agree that power corrupts, and that the greater the degree of power, the greater the level of corruption. So with that assumption we can accurately state that the larger and more powerful a government is, the greater the scope of corruption and chance for tyranny to exist. That's why dictatorship are usually viewed as bad, because absolute power corrupts absolutely. Look throughout history and you'll see that the number of bad kings and single rulers who abused power vastly outnumber the ones who did good and pursued moral objectives.

When I say that these ideals shouldn't be enforced by the state, I'm not saying that there should be no laws. I'm saying that if the overall society accepts these ideals as facts of their lives, then the government will follow suit if it accurately represents them. There will be no need to legislate ideals if society already does on its own. When a government becomes too powerful to where it can then influence society instead of vice versa, that's when we get into dangerous territory.

I don't like how powerful my own government has gotten. My greatest fear is that my children or their children will have to fight for their rights like previous generations have. Liberty is no more than a generation away from being extinguished at any time, just because we live in a peaceful democratic era doesn't mean it will last forever. We could very well become China someday.

A strong government is never necessary foe the existence of society. A police force isn't a form of strong government, nor is upholding law.
User avatar
#120775 - whoozy (06/29/2016) [-]
Power corrupts indeed, but this isn't an individual getting a huge amount of power like a dictator. We're talking about an elected government. With a big government power gets divided on more people. There is no absolute upper leader that can get what he wants without the support of the people.

Of course there is need to legislate these ideals. When someone is accused of breaking them he needs to get a proper trial, not a lynch mob. The government is an important part of every society. Not some evil overlord. You put people in charge with your vote just like you put coorperations in positions of power with your money. Some overarching power has to exist in order for a society to exist. Without a government society dissolves.

You seem so paranoid about the government, yet so trustworthy of the individual. The government is nothing more than a collection of individuals elected by individuals. It must be strong enough to protect the country from attackers, it must be strong enough to protect peoples rights from criminals and it must be strong enough to keep the country united.



User avatar
#120778 - marinepenguin (06/29/2016) [-]
Yes, that's a good reason why democracy has worked so well for us. But to assume that a democracy or representative government cannot become corrupt in equal amount given time is false. Electorates do not act in their own interests, they act within interest of party lines, which DO have leaders and upper officials who have sway over them.

We can keep going back and forth over all this.

The difference between us is that I have a distrust of government and power. I wouldn't go far to say I'm paranoid, because that implies my concerns are unwarranted or unsubstantiated, when there have been more tyrannical governments than not, and in the 20th century alone 150 million people were killed by their own leaders who only a generation or two before were fairly stable nations. And I think our policies should reflect suspicion of concentrated power.

So to conclude our discussion, we agree that globalization and the unity of humanity is going to he inevitable to a degree, we just disagree on what the role of government should be in this changing world society.
User avatar
#120780 - whoozy (06/29/2016) [-]
Very well
#120768 - And continued trade and interaction between different people c… 06/29/2016 on Politics - politics news,... 0
#120767 - A single world government would ultimately have absolute power…  [+] (8 new replies) 06/29/2016 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar
#120769 - whoozy (06/29/2016) [-]
In theory the government wouldn't actually have all power. They are elected to implement the will of the people. I don't know why you insist that democratic values would be eraded. What do you believe is the limit on a unification then? How large can a country be before it has to stop?
I believe it can protects the rights of the individual much more than what we're seeing today. It would grant us the power to protect the most sentral European values.

I'm not saying that two countries automatically becomes more stable when unified. I'm just saying that on a big scale it will be. As long as countries are allowed to choose their membership. Their wouldn't have to be separatist rebellions. States could just elect to leave as we saw with Britain.

I wish for something very similar. I just want states to be dependant until they choose to leave. Unlike you though I don't view the founding fathers opinions of a state as an eternal solution. I'm not American after all. Smaller and localized governments can be more sufficient at solving inner feuds, but it is so slow and bureaucratic when issues arise between states. I think it's better to centralise power when it comes to our most important values. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, democracy etc. The smaller stuff each state can sort out on it's own.
User avatar
#120771 - marinepenguin (06/29/2016) [-]
As for if a state will be necessary in some form forever, that's hard to say. I'd say in a perfect world, I hope it isn't. But I fear that we will always need some form of government or institution to exist as a civilization, due to human nature and society.
User avatar
#120770 - marinepenguin (06/29/2016) [-]
In theory every political system works perfectly as it should, theory is not reality. A democratically elected government is not infallible to corruption or tyranny. A democratically elected dictator is still ultimately a dictator.

And those are complicated questions that I don't have answers to, it all depends on the will of people and how closely they identify with one another. But ultimately globalization and free trade will bring people together.

And you cannot have freedom of an individual and a powerful government, the two oppose each other by definition. A state is only given powers afforded to it by its populace, the stronger the state, the less free the people. That is just fact.

And I completely disagree that a centralized power should uphold our rights and freedoms as individuals, that sounds like an oxymoron to me. It is up to each person to secure and promote these rights themselves. A culture is only as strong as the collection of individuals that comprise it.
User avatar
#120772 - whoozy (06/29/2016) [-]
True. I just don't get why you insist that a big goverment would be corrupted. Removing the key central values that holds the union apart would be self destructive for the government.

Political union is a part of this, but we can disagree on this.

The government need to be powerful in order to maintain control. That's why it's the government. Just look at how powerful your own government is. Power remains in numbers i.e. the people. If nobody supports the government it falls. I don't want the state to have any more power than it does today. Power would still be divided. I'm not talking about a chinese government here.

They protect them. This already is the standard today. If you're attacked police should protect you. If someone steals something from you, the government needs to make sure the thief pays for the damages. We can't have a big wild west where the law is in every individuals hands. That's anarchy.
User avatar
#120773 - marinepenguin (06/29/2016) [-]
It's very simple. I think we can agree that power corrupts, and that the greater the degree of power, the greater the level of corruption. So with that assumption we can accurately state that the larger and more powerful a government is, the greater the scope of corruption and chance for tyranny to exist. That's why dictatorship are usually viewed as bad, because absolute power corrupts absolutely. Look throughout history and you'll see that the number of bad kings and single rulers who abused power vastly outnumber the ones who did good and pursued moral objectives.

When I say that these ideals shouldn't be enforced by the state, I'm not saying that there should be no laws. I'm saying that if the overall society accepts these ideals as facts of their lives, then the government will follow suit if it accurately represents them. There will be no need to legislate ideals if society already does on its own. When a government becomes too powerful to where it can then influence society instead of vice versa, that's when we get into dangerous territory.

I don't like how powerful my own government has gotten. My greatest fear is that my children or their children will have to fight for their rights like previous generations have. Liberty is no more than a generation away from being extinguished at any time, just because we live in a peaceful democratic era doesn't mean it will last forever. We could very well become China someday.

A strong government is never necessary foe the existence of society. A police force isn't a form of strong government, nor is upholding law.
User avatar
#120775 - whoozy (06/29/2016) [-]
Power corrupts indeed, but this isn't an individual getting a huge amount of power like a dictator. We're talking about an elected government. With a big government power gets divided on more people. There is no absolute upper leader that can get what he wants without the support of the people.

Of course there is need to legislate these ideals. When someone is accused of breaking them he needs to get a proper trial, not a lynch mob. The government is an important part of every society. Not some evil overlord. You put people in charge with your vote just like you put coorperations in positions of power with your money. Some overarching power has to exist in order for a society to exist. Without a government society dissolves.

You seem so paranoid about the government, yet so trustworthy of the individual. The government is nothing more than a collection of individuals elected by individuals. It must be strong enough to protect the country from attackers, it must be strong enough to protect peoples rights from criminals and it must be strong enough to keep the country united.



User avatar
#120778 - marinepenguin (06/29/2016) [-]
Yes, that's a good reason why democracy has worked so well for us. But to assume that a democracy or representative government cannot become corrupt in equal amount given time is false. Electorates do not act in their own interests, they act within interest of party lines, which DO have leaders and upper officials who have sway over them.

We can keep going back and forth over all this.

The difference between us is that I have a distrust of government and power. I wouldn't go far to say I'm paranoid, because that implies my concerns are unwarranted or unsubstantiated, when there have been more tyrannical governments than not, and in the 20th century alone 150 million people were killed by their own leaders who only a generation or two before were fairly stable nations. And I think our policies should reflect suspicion of concentrated power.

So to conclude our discussion, we agree that globalization and the unity of humanity is going to he inevitable to a degree, we just disagree on what the role of government should be in this changing world society.
User avatar
#120780 - whoozy (06/29/2016) [-]
Very well
#120764 - I don't disagree, and I used to believe very similarly. …  [+] (12 new replies) 06/29/2016 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar
#120765 - whoozy (06/29/2016) [-]
What is it that you fear with a political unification? As long as democratic values are preserved I see no problem. I realise that a lot of nations desire independence and like Britain they would be free to leave. A lot of Europe is already very unified politically. Not completely, but with clise similarities. The economic union has been great for peace as you said. With a political union the risk of war is even smaller.

Let's take America as an example then. Would yoy rather stay united or would you like each state to separate and be independent?

Here I disagree. Unification has to happen on a political level. If not we're not unified at all. We're trading partners held together only by profit. This is more scary to me.
User avatar
#120768 - marinepenguin (06/29/2016) [-]
And continued trade and interaction between different people creates unity and mutual respect. Trade creates more than just profit, it creates relationships. Alliances and trade routes usually go hand in hand.
User avatar
#120767 - marinepenguin (06/29/2016) [-]
A single world government would ultimately have absolute power, democratic values would slowly be eroded as they always are in the presence of such entities. The EU was regulating everything from the curvature of bananas to British tea kettles, that's the amount of micromanagement into our lives we'd he dealing with on a global scale. I do not believe that a one world government can coexist with the values of protecting the rights of the individual.

A politically united world is not inherently safer than one that's unified through trade, countries who are forced to unify that do not wish to would see more conflict than if they were simply allowed to exist separately yet trade with one another freely. You see this within successful separatist movements all across the globe.

As for the United States, I do no wish for 50 separate entities entirely, but I do wish for 50 independent States loosely held together by a federal government and constitution as first intended by the founding fathers, who felt similarly about concentrated power. This would distribute the power more broadly to the states and allow them to solve their own issues more easily. Government and beauracracy is inherently more inefficient and ineffective the larger and more cumbersome it gets, smaller and localized governments would be more effective in terms of cost and time at combating their personalized issues.
User avatar
#120769 - whoozy (06/29/2016) [-]
In theory the government wouldn't actually have all power. They are elected to implement the will of the people. I don't know why you insist that democratic values would be eraded. What do you believe is the limit on a unification then? How large can a country be before it has to stop?
I believe it can protects the rights of the individual much more than what we're seeing today. It would grant us the power to protect the most sentral European values.

I'm not saying that two countries automatically becomes more stable when unified. I'm just saying that on a big scale it will be. As long as countries are allowed to choose their membership. Their wouldn't have to be separatist rebellions. States could just elect to leave as we saw with Britain.

I wish for something very similar. I just want states to be dependant until they choose to leave. Unlike you though I don't view the founding fathers opinions of a state as an eternal solution. I'm not American after all. Smaller and localized governments can be more sufficient at solving inner feuds, but it is so slow and bureaucratic when issues arise between states. I think it's better to centralise power when it comes to our most important values. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, democracy etc. The smaller stuff each state can sort out on it's own.
User avatar
#120771 - marinepenguin (06/29/2016) [-]
As for if a state will be necessary in some form forever, that's hard to say. I'd say in a perfect world, I hope it isn't. But I fear that we will always need some form of government or institution to exist as a civilization, due to human nature and society.
User avatar
#120770 - marinepenguin (06/29/2016) [-]
In theory every political system works perfectly as it should, theory is not reality. A democratically elected government is not infallible to corruption or tyranny. A democratically elected dictator is still ultimately a dictator.

And those are complicated questions that I don't have answers to, it all depends on the will of people and how closely they identify with one another. But ultimately globalization and free trade will bring people together.

And you cannot have freedom of an individual and a powerful government, the two oppose each other by definition. A state is only given powers afforded to it by its populace, the stronger the state, the less free the people. That is just fact.

And I completely disagree that a centralized power should uphold our rights and freedoms as individuals, that sounds like an oxymoron to me. It is up to each person to secure and promote these rights themselves. A culture is only as strong as the collection of individuals that comprise it.
User avatar
#120772 - whoozy (06/29/2016) [-]
True. I just don't get why you insist that a big goverment would be corrupted. Removing the key central values that holds the union apart would be self destructive for the government.

Political union is a part of this, but we can disagree on this.

The government need to be powerful in order to maintain control. That's why it's the government. Just look at how powerful your own government is. Power remains in numbers i.e. the people. If nobody supports the government it falls. I don't want the state to have any more power than it does today. Power would still be divided. I'm not talking about a chinese government here.

They protect them. This already is the standard today. If you're attacked police should protect you. If someone steals something from you, the government needs to make sure the thief pays for the damages. We can't have a big wild west where the law is in every individuals hands. That's anarchy.
User avatar
#120773 - marinepenguin (06/29/2016) [-]
It's very simple. I think we can agree that power corrupts, and that the greater the degree of power, the greater the level of corruption. So with that assumption we can accurately state that the larger and more powerful a government is, the greater the scope of corruption and chance for tyranny to exist. That's why dictatorship are usually viewed as bad, because absolute power corrupts absolutely. Look throughout history and you'll see that the number of bad kings and single rulers who abused power vastly outnumber the ones who did good and pursued moral objectives.

When I say that these ideals shouldn't be enforced by the state, I'm not saying that there should be no laws. I'm saying that if the overall society accepts these ideals as facts of their lives, then the government will follow suit if it accurately represents them. There will be no need to legislate ideals if society already does on its own. When a government becomes too powerful to where it can then influence society instead of vice versa, that's when we get into dangerous territory.

I don't like how powerful my own government has gotten. My greatest fear is that my children or their children will have to fight for their rights like previous generations have. Liberty is no more than a generation away from being extinguished at any time, just because we live in a peaceful democratic era doesn't mean it will last forever. We could very well become China someday.

A strong government is never necessary foe the existence of society. A police force isn't a form of strong government, nor is upholding law.
User avatar
#120775 - whoozy (06/29/2016) [-]
Power corrupts indeed, but this isn't an individual getting a huge amount of power like a dictator. We're talking about an elected government. With a big government power gets divided on more people. There is no absolute upper leader that can get what he wants without the support of the people.

Of course there is need to legislate these ideals. When someone is accused of breaking them he needs to get a proper trial, not a lynch mob. The government is an important part of every society. Not some evil overlord. You put people in charge with your vote just like you put coorperations in positions of power with your money. Some overarching power has to exist in order for a society to exist. Without a government society dissolves.

You seem so paranoid about the government, yet so trustworthy of the individual. The government is nothing more than a collection of individuals elected by individuals. It must be strong enough to protect the country from attackers, it must be strong enough to protect peoples rights from criminals and it must be strong enough to keep the country united.



User avatar
#120778 - marinepenguin (06/29/2016) [-]
Yes, that's a good reason why democracy has worked so well for us. But to assume that a democracy or representative government cannot become corrupt in equal amount given time is false. Electorates do not act in their own interests, they act within interest of party lines, which DO have leaders and upper officials who have sway over them.

We can keep going back and forth over all this.

The difference between us is that I have a distrust of government and power. I wouldn't go far to say I'm paranoid, because that implies my concerns are unwarranted or unsubstantiated, when there have been more tyrannical governments than not, and in the 20th century alone 150 million people were killed by their own leaders who only a generation or two before were fairly stable nations. And I think our policies should reflect suspicion of concentrated power.

So to conclude our discussion, we agree that globalization and the unity of humanity is going to he inevitable to a degree, we just disagree on what the role of government should be in this changing world society.
User avatar
#120780 - whoozy (06/29/2016) [-]
Very well
User avatar
#120766 - whoozy (06/29/2016) [-]
close similarities*