Forum Post: The head of the Farmers Syndicate talks about their continuing battle
Posted 11 years ago on Feb. 1, 2013, 5:14 p.m. EST by GirlFriday
(17435)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Egypt Independent:Why do you oppose the Constitution if it allocates the same 50 percent quota to farmers and workers, which represents the biggest victory for farmers since the 1952 revolution?
Mohamed Abdel Qader:This article is tricky. It was added at the last minute, while members of the Constituent Assembly were voting on the final constitutional draft. Furthermore, it was added to the transitional articles chapter, which means that the 50 percent quota only applies to the coming Parliament, and will then be abrogated.
EI:How is this article tricky?
Abdel Qader:It is a trick in the sense that the majority of Constituent Assembly members did not approve it, and that it was [drafted] only at the last minute to serve certain political calculations. They feared that if that article was taken out, the Constitution would lose the support of labor and farmers when put to a nationwide referendum.
They incorporated it as a transitional article to mobilize farmers and workers’ support, comfortable in the knowledge that it would automatically expire. The new Constitution limits Shura Council membership to holders of university degrees, which means that illiterate people and holders of intermediate and lower degrees, including farmers, are excluded.
Farmworkers are the 99%
http://truth-out.org/news/item/14309-care-about-your-food-then-care-about-your-farmworkers-too
[Removed]
Illiterate people are always excluded in law making processes, while those with money are always put on a pedestal. That's the sad trick.
They have 1.6 million members. But, for the most part you are right and, currently, we have states here that advocate ignorance. Then there is the added addition of over testing which creates a lack of critical thinking.
Over testing? What are you referring to?
I can't believe that guys like Kent Hovind get so much ear in US. It's so depressing. I agree, the Bible Belt states definitely advocate ignorance. It's the only chance they have for religion to keep flowering.
[-] 1 points by oldJohn (-14) 5 minutes ago OK, but why remind me using insults that are unoriginal and which hurt minorities? That's uninteresting and hurtful to so many people. Occupy is the complete opposite of using insults like retard. Do you need money for education? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Because you fit the description so well. You aren't intellectually disabled. Different group altogether. It could successfully be argued that you have the emotional IQ of a gnat.
So, retard you are.
So be it, if it makes you feel good to put down intellectually challenged minorities in such unoriginal fashion. It would be interesting to go beyond sandbox insults, but some people are stuck in their child years.
Just you, babe.
Try to be more original. It's a bit difficult, but it's more interesting. Anyone can spew out sandbox insults. Being unoriginal should be a crime.
I can't believe that so much ear buys into it.
Over testing to the point that kids are memorizing facts simply to the end of the semester or quarter or test and then forget the information. Some countries in Asia are having the same problem.
Oh yeah, that. Very true. I was confused and thought you meant scientific experiments and tests. The problem is kids are not taught properly. Remembering facts is not that important. We can use dictionaries, Wikipedia, encyclopedias, journals, etc... to gather facts. What's important is to learn logic, the scientific method, where and how to look for information, etc... The way mathematics are thought are also an aberration. Kids learn one way to divide, but they don't really understand how it works. They should learn many different ways and how each way was conceived, why it works, etc... It's not important to know how to divide on paper since we can simply use a calculator, what's important is to understand the underpinnings of the method. But yeah, schools are obsessed by tests. It gives them the illusion that they are objectively doing something good. We measure how much information was memorized and we think this number equates to how much the kids have learned. Ridiculous, and a waste of time.
And there are so many things we don't learn, like how to handle relationships, how to create a business, etc... Kids need to be prepared for the real world.
I'd say that they learn a hell of a lot about relationships. They mimic adults. I thought that many people would, you know, grow up. Nope. Same path. Gossip, teachers pet, cheer leading squad........it's all there.
Mimicking adults is not a good way to learn about relationships because it depends on the adults you are mimicking, Most adults are not very good in that department. It's like trying to become a chef by mimicking your mom's cooking. It won't work unless she's a chef herself.
True that. However, it would just work much better if people stopped breeding.
That's a dumb an unrealistic solution. It won't happen. It's better to spend energy on real solutions.
And so is teaching a course on relationships. Some areas they teach about different types of families. And there is a public outcry from the right wingers. They teach about safe sex and there is a public outcry from the right wingers. They teach about domestic violence and then they go to church. They have spent over a decade with "group work" so that they can teach kids all about how you have at least one control freak and one person who doesn't do shit and three other people who are going to do nothing but gossip about the other two or each other.
You are a 39 year old man with multiple IDs. Somewhere along the line you thought that this made you an ethical, genuine person. So, since kids mimic adults and that will never change than you will have to change. Not going to happen? Then move on.
I'm 39? News to me. My question is, who cares what right wingers think? They are always wrong.
My whole point is that I don't think kids should necessarily mimic my behavior. They might because no one teaches them anything about relationships in school. There's all kinds of social theories. They should be thought. Not only is it valuable, it's interesting as well.
[-] 1 points by oldJohn (-14) 0 minutes ago Retard is a pejorative term. If you knew anything about social sciences and etiquette you would refrain from utilizing insults that not only insult me, but a whole lot of people as well. It also shows a lack of originality. The accepted term in mentally challenged. If using ad hominem is important to you, I would respectfully challenge you to using insults which are specifically targeted to your opponent without insulting minorities or anyone else. Calling someone a retard in 2012 shows the need to teach relationship studies in high school. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
No, we have been using intellectual disability for so long now that they are a completely different category than yours. You are a retard. This is why you need so many IDs.
Your lack of originality and obsession with terms that hurt minorities is saddening. Your lame vindictive attitude contributes to the bad rep this site acquires.
Your multiple IDs and general assholeness is the number one factor in any bad rep this site gets. I just like reminding you of your general assholeness .
OK, but why remind me using insults that are unoriginal and which hurt minorities? That's uninteresting and hurtful to so many people. Occupy is the complete opposite of using insults like retard. Do you need money for education?
Ahhhh.......the ol' do as I say not as I do. That's interesting.
I don't personally think there's anything wrong with having multiple ID's on a site that is heavy on censorship. The point is not that kids shouldn't necessarily mimic some of my behaviors, it's that kids should learn about relationship theory so that they don't rely on the adult role models in their lives. There's a lot of adults who don't have proper relationship skills. Many. So many kids are raised in families in which the parents fight all the time. They have no tools to understand this. Teaching them about social theory and showing them examples of families that are functional would help them understand their the adults in their world don't necessarily handle things in the best way. Just so they can say - "Oh, not all families are like mine. That's interesting. I thought it was normal to see my dad come in drunk from work and scream at my mom if the dinner wasn't ready."
[-] 0 points by oldJohn (5) 2 minutes ago Of course you can't give people relationship experience, but what you can give them is relationship theory and examples in practice. Your argument is very weak. Business schools don't give people business experience, they give them theory and examples in practice. Many other fields do the same. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Pffftttt....... Theory doesn't make the piece of the brain that deals with time and consequences grow in any faster, Thras. There is theory and there is application.
You mean business schools don't send out interns?
Of course there is theory and application, and it's usually the case that when one learns theory it improves the application. Learning relationship theory and viewing practical examples of healthy relationships could only help children, especially those with negative role models in their families. It certainly would not hurt then in any way.
Sure, business schools send out interns. There could also be internships to learn about relationships. Attending divorce court for example, or interviewing counsellors to learn about the most common problems in society and how professionals think they can be solved. Why not interview couples that made it through hard times.
There's a thousand and one things to learn about relationships. We should teach those things to our children. Learning to solve relationship problems is a key attribute in socially successful people.
With your attitude, why bother teaching the theory about anything. Why not bypass school altogether and send the kids to learn from application, directly in the streets? After all, there's a gap between theory and application in every subject. Your argument based on the false either/or dichotomy is not only applicable to relationship studies. The truth is, it's not either or, you can learn from both theory and practice.
There's no reason social studies should start at the university level, especially since it's a subject that impacts all our lives from birth till death. Every high school curriculum should have some classes on the subject.
It doesn't have heavy censorship. Hell, I've watched you carry on conversations and arguments with yourself. Sure they do. They have tools. What part of keep your hands and your feet to yourself and use your inside voice do they not get in kindergarten? They have all kinds of little programs that they stick into schools.
You cannot gift people relationship experience. You cannot do it. I wish you could.
Of course you can't give people relationship experience, but what you can give them is relationship theory and examples in practice.
Your argument is very weak. Business schools don't give people business experience, they give them theory and examples in practice. Many other fields do the same.
[-] 1 points by oldJohn (5) 13 minutes ago Of course there is theory and application, and it's usually the case that when one learns theory it improves the application. Learning relationship theory and viewing practical examples of healthy relationships could only help children, especially those with negative role models in their families. It certainly would not hurt then in any way. Sure, business schools send out interns. There could also be internships to learn about relationships. Attending divorce court for example, or interviewing counsellors to learn about the most common problems in society and how professionals think they can be solved. Why not interview couples that made it through hard times. There's a thousand and one things to learn about relationships. We should teach those things to our children. Learning to solve relationship problems is a key attribute in socially successful people. With your attitude, why bother teaching the theory about anything. Why not bypass school altogether and send the kids to learn from application, directly in the streets? After all, there's a gap between theory and application in every subject. Your argument based on the false either/or dichotomy is not only applicable to relationship studies. The truth is, it's not either or, you can learn from both theory and practice. There's no reason social studies should start at the university level, especially since it's a subject that impacts all our lives from birth till death. Every high school curriculum should have some classes on the subject. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Now you are off your rocker.
Define a healthy relationship.
One in which two people respect each other and are able to resolve problems like adults, and are able to walk away from each other like adults if the problems are unresolvable. This is only possible is both people in the relationship (love or friendship) have relationship problem solving skills.
[-] 1 points by oldJohn (5) 3 minutes ago One in which two people respect each other and are able to resolve problems like adults, and are able to walk away from each other like adults if the problems are unresolvable. This is only possible is both people in the relationship (love or friendship) have relationship problem solving skills. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Define respect. Does the marriage contract make a difference? Does the fact "falling in love" or specifically marriage for love is a rather new invention factor in? How about the invention of the nuclear family?
Respect is listening to others and understanding their needs and being honest about being able to meet those needs or not. It's treating people with fairness and dignity. It's treating others like you would like to be treated. It's being true to yourself, honest with yourself, and honest with others. It's understanding that others can see the world differently than you. It's being able to let go gracefully when one doesn't want you, and being able to give and take, to share, when one does.
No.
No.
No.
Respect is not about the structure of friendships or loving relationships, it's about the interaction inside that structure. If the interaction is fair and genuine, then the structure is of no importance. The structure only becomes important if it impacts on the intrinsic respect of the relationship; for example, in an owner/slave relationship.
[-] 1 points by oldJohn (0) 21 minutes ago I find it quite odd that you would (from the get go) say that kids shouldn't mimic adults when you know that this is not going to change Why would it not change? We can offer them something extra so they don't have to rely on mimicking. We do this in all the other fields. That's what the education system is for. There was a time when schools didn't exist, and people had to learn to cook by mimicking their parents. Now they can learn that in school and become great chefs. The same could be true with relationship studies. You don't just become a great friend or wife by winging it, these things can be learned. The only thing that can alter this is exposure and usually through informal settings and diverse encounters. I disagree. Learning about relationship theory is another way to alter relationship behavior. Seeing examples of healthy relationships is another. It's the same with any subject. We don't tell kids to mimic their parents if they want to be good businessmen, artists, cooks, etc... Unless of course their parents are great businessmen, artists, cooks, etc... Relationships have been studied, and a lot can be learned from that work. Being good in relationships is something that can be learned, like anything else. Why leave it to trial and error when theory and examples can help? I don't get your argument one bit. You seem to be treating relationships as something different than other fields. Why? ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
Good, like happiness, is a vague and subjective term that cannot be measured. Look here
The only thing that can alter this is exposure and usually through informal settings and diverse encounters. Kids encounter this in psych courses and, obviously, there is a field dedicated to it.
There was a time when cookbooks were not as abundant and some of our mothers and fathers relied on their parent's cooking skills. Now, you pick what you want to learn (if you want to) and through trial and error can cook as good as, if not better than, what is offered in your five star restaurants. It's more economical. Incidentally, many chefs still fail and they either learn through what they did wrong or they don't. I would like to add that currently you go to school to learn to cook for a box restaurant and have a huge financial debt. Very few become famous or well off---it's about whether or not you are marketable not necessarily on skills especially when you reach stuper stardom and get your own tv show.
Lot's of people wing it and have successful relationships through friends or as wives. Stepford wife, much? Either way you are still waiting for that piece of the brain to grow in that deals with time and consequences.
Charles Horton Cooley's The Looking-Glass Self Theory has also been used extensively as marketing ploy. This is how vague concepts of good and happiness are used to manipulate people. Kids encounter Cooley first in high school sociology textbooks. I find that your arguments are simply another method of needing that type of validation. It reinforces the helpless society.
You're not acquainted with relationship theory? There's all kinds of people working on this at the masters and PH.D levels. There's a lot of material to teach. There are classes that exist at the university level and in seminars. We should teach this to high school students. We all have social interactions in life, it's good to know the theory that exists to explain them and give us the tools to make the best relationships possible.
[-] 0 points by oldJohn (2) 7 hours ago Does a marriage contract make a difference in a relationship? It can make a difference depending on the laws of the land; for visas, hospital visits, insurance, etc... It can make a difference to religious people. Does the fact "falling in love" or specifically marriage for love is a rather new invention factor in? How about the invention of the nuclear family? Sure, for both of these can make a difference. Every variable can and will make a difference in a relationship. The people themselves make a difference. Each relationship is unique, but the fundamentals of respect our the same. The fundamentals of relationship problem solving are also the same. Why the rhetorical questions. Just say what you want to say. No use playing games. A debate is better when both participants are honest. It becomes lame when one tries to get the upper hand by attempting to trick the other into some type of intellectual corner by using rhetoric and loaded questions. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
I'm trying to understand where you are at and give you the space to state your case in case you are being "genuine". No lie-I find it quite odd that you would (from the get go) say that kids shouldn't mimic adults when you know that this is not going to change. I do find this absurd. The only thing that can alter this is exposure and usually through informal settings and diverse encounters. I know you are aware of this. You are also aware that there comes a point when the public education system becomes intrusive. However, the same principles of conflict resolution can be utilized in a micro/macro way and may already be incorporated in a myriad of ways through courses already offered.
So, as I am reading what you have written my mind is ticking off what we know about the adolescent brain, the history of pubic education and it's role as representation of the white mainstream culture (as social control), the different types of relationships, the impact of capitalism--the studies that show that more people are opting to remain single, the history of marriage, societies current norms, socio-economic status, cultures values, female aggression, politics involved, domestic violence, and programs that have been implemented thus far, the pretense of the history of the nuclear family, the history of gender roles and how it is applied through socio-economic status, etc...
The difference in those relationships that are kink related and those that are not is that the parties involved have already identified their needs and the power struggle is removed for a previously agreed upon time frame. Their starting point is vastly different from those that are vanilla-usually.
I came across a review on the Fifty Shades of Gray. I have not read the book series and I have no intention of reading it. The author said that she would not trust her husband with information on her fantasies. The first thing that crossed my mind was the question=Why the hell did you marry him then? Incidentally, this lack of self questioning is a prime example of what leads to the midlife crisis.
Intrinsic motivation, which you touched on in a somewhat different context, and critical thinking are going to be key. Unfortunately, this is often opposite of societies norms and the current structure of the education system. Conformity (extrinsic motivation) is what leads to success here. This brings me back full circle to what I stated much earlier. The schools are over testing (it is a scam for profit) and critical thinking skills are not being developed.
Why would it not change? We can offer them something extra so they don't have to rely on mimicking. We do this in all the other fields. That's what the education system is for. There was a time when schools didn't exist, and people had to learn to cook by mimicking their parents. Now they can learn that in school and become great chefs. The same could be true with relationship studies. You don't just become a great friend or wife by winging it, these things can be learned.
I disagree. Learning about relationship theory is another way to alter relationship behavior. Seeing examples of healthy relationships is another.
It's the same with any subject. We don't tell kids to mimic their parents if they want to be good businessmen, artists, cooks, etc... Unless of course their parents are great businessmen, artists, cooks, etc... Relationships have been studied, and a lot can be learned from that work. Being good in relationships is something that can be learned, like anything else. Why leave it to trial and error when theory and examples can help?
I don't get your argument one bit. You seem to be treating relationships as something different than other fields. Why?
I should have been more clear. Does a marriage contract make a difference in a relationship? Does the fact "falling in love" or specifically marriage for love is a rather new invention factor in? How about the invention of the nuclear family?
It can make a difference depending on the laws of the land; for visas, hospital visits, insurance, etc... It can make a difference to religious people.
Sure, for both of these can make a difference. Every variable can and will make a difference in a relationship. The people themselves make a difference. Each relationship is unique, but the fundamentals of respect our the same. The fundamentals of relationship problem solving are also the same.
Why the rhetorical questions. Just say what you want to say. No use playing games. A debate is better when both participants are honest. It becomes lame when one tries to get the upper hand by attempting to trick the other into some type of intellectual corner by using rhetoric and loaded questions.
[-] 1 points by oldJohn (0) 0 minutes ago You're not acquainted with relationship theory? There's all kinds of people working on this at the masters and PH.D levels. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink
It is an extension of psych. I have no use for it.
I have very little respect for "experts" in psych as it is.
That's fine. We all have different opinions.
It's not an extension of psychology, it's an extension of social sciences of which psychology is but one field.
To help curb your ignorance:
It will be used in psych. The more that I interact with the "experts" the less respect that I have for the entire field.
I like soc just fine. Psych--I hate.
We don't care about what you like, we care about what kids should learn in school. Psychology is a field of social sciences, there's no reason why it shouldn't be taught in hight school. However, this is not even the proposal, the proposal is to teach the study of interpersonal relationships which is a science that touches on various disciplines, not only psychology. And, it's interesting!
You have extremely weak arguments. Like saying I don't like mathematics so it shouldn't be taught in high school. Your replies tither between trolling and stupidity. Absolutely uninteresting.
No, we don't care about your need for validation or whether or not you think that it is interesting nor your little aiding and abetting the need for a helpless society. Both basic psych and soc theories are already in schools as are elements of conflict resolutions.
Your argument is based on vague notions of 'good' and Stepford wives. You are a retard.
Retard is a pejorative term. If you knew anything about social sciences and etiquette you would refrain from utilizing insults that not only insult me, but a whole lot of people as well. It also shows a lack of originality. The accepted term in mentally challenged. If using ad hominem is important to you, I would respectfully challenge you to using insults which are specifically targeted to your opponent without insulting minorities or anyone else.
Calling someone a retard in 2012 shows the need to teach relationship studies in high school.
You are a troll. Everyone knows it, and on top of that you insult the mentally challenged. Beautiful. Luckily, this site isn't judged on your level of intellect.
Cause and effect would be a good start.
The simplest of truths (call it karma, I don't care), and it's being avoided like the plague.
Cause and effect would be a great start. There could be a class aimed specifically at targeting BS like religion, astrology, and all other nonsense where cause and effect cannot be seen and where there's no evidence. BS debunk 101.
I'd be more into BS debunk 105.
Like, allowing congress to play insider trading leads to attracting criminals, resulting in endless illegal invasions of sovereign nations. Bailing out criminal banksters leads to them tanking the economy repeatedly, and taxpayers having to bail them out repeatedly.
Like Obama said, one of the big problems with the bankers is that their actions were legal.
"Obviously some laws were broken by some bankers."
Now you're backtracking a little. But I'm not going to give you a hard time. The rest of your comment I agree on completely. Still, you ought to read that article, it's a bit of an eye-opener. Really, 'T,' you're a smart guy, but even you sometimes fail to do your research.
Plato himself criticized the sophists for playing a little loose with the facts just for the sake of winning an argument, as I'm sure you're well aware of.
I read the article. It's interesting. I tend to agree with most of it. Plato was right about the Sophists, but he also had a few tricks. He played quite loosely with some of the assumptions his ideas was based upon. The philosophy in those days wasn't rigorous like it is now. It was extremely interesting though.
If you actually did read that Reuters article about Holder, I have one more for you:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213
Between the two articles, you can now consider yourself informed enough as to whether rampant laws have been broken, and that Obama's comment was indeed a blatant lie. The corruption runs pretty deep, 'oldJohn.'
There's not much of a problem then. Occupy should raise money to bring these people to court. The evidence is there, it's just the matter of starting a trial. Why not create a donation system for this. I'm sure many Americans would be happy. Stopping corruption is easy when people break the law, you just gather the evidence and bring them to court. The real problem is when bankers use their leverage to change laws in their favor. Then it's much harder to stop them.
There was a lawsuit filed last year for $43T.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/major-banks-governmental-officials-and-their-comrade-capitalists-targets-of-spire-law-group-llps-racketeering-and-money-laundering-lawsuit-seeking-return-of-43-trillion-to-the-united-states-treasury-2012-10-25
The DOJ has all but admitted that whey won't file criminal charges against Wall Street because of fear of repercussions to the financial system.
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/01/11959/frontline-gets-its-man-lanny-breuer-leaves-doj-after-expose
Tweeted
Food4Thought http://www.marketwatch.com/story/major-banks-governmental-officials-and-their-comrade-capitalists-targets-of-spire-law-group-llps-racketeering-and-money-laundering-lawsuit-seeking-return-of-43-trillion-to-the-united-states-treasury-2012-10-25 If the Government won't Prosecute - The People MUST - please Share/Circulate/Support
Tweeted
Check this video out - The Untouchables http://video.pbs.org/video/2327953844 What the public needs 2 know - please Share/Circulate
Thanks for this.
"fear of repercussions to the financial system."
WallStreet acts almost exclusively like organized crime.
From shylocks to extortionists.
If you don't pay us? Who will protect you from us?
Then it's all good.
Blatant Lie.
Replying to above - The civil suits are mostly a nuisance for them. All the same, it's the least they deserve.
I don't think that the concerns of the affect that large scale criminal suits is unwarranted. It could be disasterous to a fragile economy.
The best thing that could happen, without risking damage to the economy, is to break up the banks.
The Fed Reserve Bank of Dallas Pres. Richard Fisher has been telling this to anyone that will listen.
http://www.dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2013/fs130116.cfm http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FisherR http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/fed/annual/2011/ar11.pdf
Strangely enough, the idea of breaking up the banks has even been floated by Republicans recently. Peggy Noonan and Joe Scarborough. As sort of a turn around scheme for them. Or a way to get back to their 'conservative' roots. In other words, shift focus from the crazy talk. But I think the right wing base likes crazy talk better.
No, Obama said this. The problem is not bankers doing illegal activities, that would be easy enough to stop. The problem is much deeper, it's greedy bankers so wealthy that they were able to get laws changed so that their activities are now legal. Much trickier and nastier.
If you don't think greedy bankers are able to influence laws with their money, you're very wrong my friend. You put too much trust in the government.
BTW - You're one of the main reasons this forum sucks. You're a pea brain and you act as if you were the leader of this website. Ah! Addicts are always living in their own world.
It's both. They had a lot of laws changed but they broke a whole lot of laws as well. Obama's lying his ass off. And this may have a little to do with why nobody's going to jail:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/20/us-usa-holder-mortgage-idUSTRE80J0PH20120120
Obama ain't go no booty, so how could he be lying his ass off? Those who do illegal activities will be put in jail. It's simple. No need for Occupy on that case.
Didn't even bother to read the article, I see. Do a little research, 'T,' it's no secret a lot of laws were broke. I don't memorize the shit because I'm not that into economics, but robo-signing and LIBOR come immediately to mind.
Obviously some laws were broken by some bankers. However, this is not the main problem. People that break laws like the boys at Enron end up in jail. They can be arrested and prosecuted. They can hurt us a lot, but we already have tools against them (judicial system) so we don't need Occupy on that level.
We need Occupy for the sneakier problem of corruption used to modify laws. After laws have been modified, then we're really screwed.
Blatant Lie = their actions were legal.
Nice try for the comeback pea brain. You can never admit that you're wrong, and that's what makes you a loser. Now, go back to your therapeutic bed. And, for Pete's Sake, do you ever take some time off this site? You don't have any family, friends, etc... You're here every waking hour. It's not good for your mental health. Get out. Taste the sun. Take a short walk.
Get fucked - OH wait - that would be awful for the fucker - so - go fuck your self.
I'm trying to help my friend. You're addicted to this forum. You need to take a walk outside, to play with your grandchildren, to have a nice super with your wife, to watch a great film, anything. I promise you, if you follow my advice you'll feel much better. You're always full of anger and hate, that's no good. Take care man, and do take that walk.