Someone (you?) always seems to post this. Its bunk. Fructose isn't in everything. I just checked two different mustards, no fructose to be found. Fructose isn't everywhere, can it can be easily avoided. I know, I've been watching sugar intake very closely. Sugar in general is more difficult to avoid, but not all sugar is fructose.
Call me crazy, but I believe most schools have a health class, and do teach you these things. I had one, in grade school and a refersher sometime in HS I believe.
Its not education that's the problem (ask any trainer, their clients already know what they're doing wrong), its that people are lazy or otherwise don't care.
FWIW, the recent bucket loads of money being made in healthcare are largely insuance companies, obesity related treatments, and a large number of older americans. Oh, and drug advertising for pills to fix anything wrong with you. Its not a lack of insurance.
I have a Wii connected wireless, and there's a 360 in the house as well. Two computers, one on each side of the 360. One loses connection alot, the other seems fine. I think it has more to do with the piece of furniture blocking the signal more than the 360 is causing problems.
By all means, name a few then. So far, no one has been able to name someone born with, say, MS, that went on to do great things.
And more to the point, it's not binary, it's a continuous scale. What's the arbitrary cut-off where you let someone die, where you're sure they couldn't have contributed anything to society?
If you need to be hooked to a machine to survive. If you get government SSI because you were deemed retarded.
Completely and totally irrelevant. The technology to keep him alive, somewhat independent, and communicating with the outside world wouldn't exist in the world you describe, as there would be no motivation to create it.
You seem pretty sure about that. I have my doubts. ALS affects many people years into their life. I'm not against treating illness, but things such as MS which pretty much start you off poor I'm not sure its worthwhile to do anything about.
I have no idea what you're talking about. It certainly doesn't relate to anything I've said in any way.
Sure it does. You were arguing that by not letting retarded people produce more retarded people, we are interefering in evolution and survival of the fittest. If that's your stance, than we should be doing anything extra-ordinary to help such people either. We should treat them exactly like everyone else.. so no special machines, no government SSI checks, etc.
A truck is one thing, but SUVs are not currently "niche" products, but mainstream ones.
It's a niche in that most people that have these things don't really need them. The vast majority of SUVs on the road that I see have just one person in them, the driver.
Auto makers are talking about "cross-over" vehicals, but I don't know why. How about just building a good car?
No, you're using the law to protect yourself. See, there was a time when we didn't have such a law, and the government held a gun to your head and said confess or die. I think you need to research history more as to why its a good idea to not let the government force you to incriminate yourself.
Huh? They certainly can. There's a process, and it involves the Executive branch, but do you really think the president would NOT sign such an amendment?
I am against adding hacks to my web site to make my site work with IE6 or 7 or any browser for that matter. I strongly feel that if you follow well established web standards your site will work on any browser.
Well once you're in the real world and your job depends on the site you're building working in IE you'll change your tune.. or find other employment. If it doesn't look right in IE, you can't ignore it, like it or not.
Well, go for it. What will really happen though is people visiting your site will get pissed, not care about you pushing your beliefs on them, and go to a competitor that designs so IE will work.
I have noticed, throughout history, the most intelligent individuals are very often physically unfit, to varying extremes. Possibly the best contemporary example is Stephen Hawking.
Intelligent people may not be strong, but they aren't so sickly as to require constant care or they'll die. I wish you would have read the many other posters that responsed to me; Stephen Hawking wasn't born with a genetic disease, he back ill late in life, after he started showing how intelligent he was.
Do you believe Stephen Hawking is a leech on society, or do you believe he has contributed significantly to society's collective knowledge? Without the technology and the empathic desire to keep the "unfittest" (sic) alive, he wouldn't have had the chance to contribute a fraction as much.
Fit doesn't mean strong. Nor does it even mean exteremly intelligent. It means you can do more than drool and ride the bus all day and pack groceries... so long as people are watching out for you at almost all times. Everyone seems to be making the same mistake as you; the football player that ends up pumping gas for a career is more or less fit. The kid born with MS that can't walk and needs medical attention at all times and likely won't live past 15 anyway isn't fit.
Natural selection works on immediacy, and intelligence on on a small scale... If your intelligence is such that it only applies to devices you can't build yourself in your youth, that form of intelligence will not be encouraged by natural selection... often quite the opposite, really.
Fine, the let's stop helping MS kids and severely retarded people and see what happens to them. If they are fit as you claim, they'll live in our environment without unusual help.
You have totally missed my point. The issue is of statistics. If 1/100m have a gene for AIDs resistance, and we only have 6.6b people on the earth, then that means only 66 people have that gene.
We don't know which people have that gene, however; it therefore benefits us to "save" as many people as we can until (1,000 years from now) everyone has that gene.
That's just absurd. The chances of that 1 in 100 million being retarded (itself a smaller likelyhood than being normal) is almost zero. Go ahead, lookup the rates for genetic diseases and then combine that with your 1 in 100 million statistic. Statically speaking, it's irrelevent if we weed out such people.
The whole point is to stack the odds in our favor. The more genetic diversity we have, the more possible genes we have available in the future. If we abort kids then we lose an untold (literally unknown) number of genes. Better to keep them for the future than to throw them away now, as long as we can afford to support them.
You're not stacking the deck; you're making a change which statistically comes out to zero improvement at quite a bit of cost to society.
It is better to have resistance to HIV, period, and not be retarded. There is no reason for you to suppose or assume that HIV resistance is related to being retarded.
Fine, then we can continue to abort babies that will be born retarded, and not worry about killing the genes that could make us immune to HIV.
You were the one that setup the false dichotomy with this: What if the severely disabled (with the ability and the inclination to reproduce) have the genes for AIDs resistance? Bird-flu resistance?
Now that you say its possible to have the gene and not be severly disabled, we no longer have to support the severly disabled.
If 1,000 years from now a single gene from a disabled person allows us to survive the next bird flu, then humanity will have been saved by our compassion and grace towards the disabled now.
But that's a false dichotomy; we're just as likely (as you said) to have that gene in 1,000 years even if we don't save the disabled now.
What if the severely disabled (with the ability and the inclination to reproduce) have the genes for AIDs resistance? Bird-flu resistance?
So we're better off being retarded but immune to HIV? If that's the case, that retarded people have resistence to HIV, its likely related to being retarded.
Some people, in the same upbringing, with the same education, manage to escape and go off to college and do well, while the majority don't. This happens in the inner city, and in rural areas. We're even talking members of the same family.
So please, tell me why some manage to end up doing well, and others don't?
Sorry, I'm going to have to call you out here. My wife's late husband died of ALS, so I consider her somewhat of an expert on the disease. If you look closely, ALS seems to be more of an environmental thing. For example, her late husband was deployed in the first Iraq war, and a large majority of soliders deployed with him (greater than 65%) have since developed ALS as well.
Furthermore, his family has ZERO history of ALS, going back to his great, great grandparents. All the evidence she's compiled points to environment, not genes.
Evolution works by *differential* reproductive success. This does not require in any way that we leave the "unfit" out in the snow. Their own genetic disadvantages will see to it that they simply leave fewer offspring.
Yet just about any species WILL do just that; leave the vunerable, especialy to save themselves. As far as genentic disadvantages seeing that they don't reproduce.. you are aware that people severly retarded are getting married and having families, right? That they had to win court battles to allow that (because previously they were being serilized).
Finally, we AREN'T letting the unfit be "selected out naturally" either, we are helping ensure they survive. In other words, we're still messing with natural selection, just keeping them alive instead of the other extereme.
If you can find me a case of a person that is mentally retarded doing something higher than cashiering, please let me know. I would think such a person would make the news.
who comes from that classic heartless eugenics-oriented pov that we as a species are getting physically unfit as we allow the autistic, the downs symdrome, the epileptic, etc., to survive and breed. in classic trollish fashion, he insisted the cavemen had it right when they just left the old, infirm, etc. to die outside in the snow
You do realize this is how evolution works right? That's EXACTLY what every other complex organism does.
Honestly, what is the benefit to our species as a whole to continue to create genetically wrong humans, that can't survive without depending on society the rest of their life? Other animals leave the unfittest behind because otherwise the ENTIRE group will perish. Empathy in any other species would spell the end of that species.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone (you?) always seems to post this. Its bunk. Fructose isn't in everything. I just checked two different mustards, no fructose to be found. Fructose isn't everywhere, can it can be easily avoided. I know, I've been watching sugar intake very closely. Sugar in general is more difficult to avoid, but not all sugar is fructose.
Call me crazy, but I believe most schools have a health class, and do teach you these things. I had one, in grade school and a refersher sometime in HS I believe.
Its not education that's the problem (ask any trainer, their clients already know what they're doing wrong), its that people are lazy or otherwise don't care.
FWIW, the recent bucket loads of money being made in healthcare are largely insuance companies, obesity related treatments, and a large number of older americans. Oh, and drug advertising for pills to fix anything wrong with you. Its not a lack of insurance.
I have a Wii connected wireless, and there's a 360 in the house as well. Two computers, one on each side of the 360. One loses connection alot, the other seems fine. I think it has more to do with the piece of furniture blocking the signal more than the 360 is causing problems.
I'm spending it on mercury, then dumping it in the local lake. On the way home, I run over squirrels and cute bunnies.
Ever been to the US? When > 75% of your population is obese, you have a problem.
because you can't fit "usa" into a single byte?
Ever wonder why the US has a lower life expectancy than the UK, France, or even Cuba?
Because Americans are so lazy and just want to keep shoving donuts down their throats that they diet from obesity releated diseases? Just a hunch.
Some have been.
By all means, name a few then. So far, no one has been able to name someone born with, say, MS, that went on to do great things.
And more to the point, it's not binary, it's a continuous scale. What's the arbitrary cut-off where you let someone die, where you're sure they couldn't have contributed anything to society?
If you need to be hooked to a machine to survive. If you get government SSI because you were deemed retarded.
Completely and totally irrelevant. The technology to keep him alive, somewhat independent, and communicating with the outside world wouldn't exist in the world you describe, as there would be no motivation to create it.
You seem pretty sure about that. I have my doubts. ALS affects many people years into their life. I'm not against treating illness, but things such as MS which pretty much start you off poor I'm not sure its worthwhile to do anything about.
I have no idea what you're talking about. It certainly doesn't relate to anything I've said in any way.
Sure it does. You were arguing that by not letting retarded people produce more retarded people, we are interefering in evolution and survival of the fittest. If that's your stance, than we should be doing anything extra-ordinary to help such people either. We should treat them exactly like everyone else.. so no special machines, no government SSI checks, etc.
A truck is one thing, but SUVs are not currently "niche" products, but mainstream ones.
It's a niche in that most people that have these things don't really need them. The vast majority of SUVs on the road that I see have just one person in them, the driver.
Auto makers are talking about "cross-over" vehicals, but I don't know why. How about just building a good car?
No, you're using the law to protect yourself. See, there was a time when we didn't have such a law, and the government held a gun to your head and said confess or die. I think you need to research history more as to why its a good idea to not let the government force you to incriminate yourself.
Huh? They certainly can. There's a process, and it involves the Executive branch, but do you really think the president would NOT sign such an amendment?
I am against adding hacks to my web site to make my site work with IE6 or 7 or any browser for that matter. I strongly feel that if you follow well established web standards your site will work on any browser.
Well once you're in the real world and your job depends on the site you're building working in IE you'll change your tune.. or find other employment. If it doesn't look right in IE, you can't ignore it, like it or not.
I can't remember the last time I went to a site that didn't work in FF. And I spend alot of time on MSDN too.
Well, go for it. What will really happen though is people visiting your site will get pissed, not care about you pushing your beliefs on them, and go to a competitor that designs so IE will work.
I have noticed, throughout history, the most intelligent individuals are very often physically unfit, to varying extremes. Possibly the best contemporary example is Stephen Hawking.
Intelligent people may not be strong, but they aren't so sickly as to require constant care or they'll die. I wish you would have read the many other posters that responsed to me; Stephen Hawking wasn't born with a genetic disease, he back ill late in life, after he started showing how intelligent he was.
Do you believe Stephen Hawking is a leech on society, or do you believe he has contributed significantly to society's collective knowledge? Without the technology and the empathic desire to keep the "unfittest" (sic) alive, he wouldn't have had the chance to contribute a fraction as much.
Fit doesn't mean strong. Nor does it even mean exteremly intelligent. It means you can do more than drool and ride the bus all day and pack groceries... so long as people are watching out for you at almost all times. Everyone seems to be making the same mistake as you; the football player that ends up pumping gas for a career is more or less fit. The kid born with MS that can't walk and needs medical attention at all times and likely won't live past 15 anyway isn't fit.
Natural selection works on immediacy, and intelligence on on a small scale... If your intelligence is such that it only applies to devices you can't build yourself in your youth, that form of intelligence will not be encouraged by natural selection... often quite the opposite, really.
Fine, the let's stop helping MS kids and severely retarded people and see what happens to them. If they are fit as you claim, they'll live in our environment without unusual help.
You have totally missed my point. The issue is of statistics. If 1/100m have a gene for AIDs resistance, and we only have 6.6b people on the earth, then that means only 66 people have that gene.
We don't know which people have that gene, however; it therefore benefits us to "save" as many people as we can until (1,000 years from now) everyone has that gene.
That's just absurd. The chances of that 1 in 100 million being retarded (itself a smaller likelyhood than being normal) is almost zero. Go ahead, lookup the rates for genetic diseases and then combine that with your 1 in 100 million statistic. Statically speaking, it's irrelevent if we weed out such people.
The whole point is to stack the odds in our favor. The more genetic diversity we have, the more possible genes we have available in the future. If we abort kids then we lose an untold (literally unknown) number of genes. Better to keep them for the future than to throw them away now, as long as we can afford to support them.
You're not stacking the deck; you're making a change which statistically comes out to zero improvement at quite a bit of cost to society.
I think the airbags for for landing on land, not on water.
Well they also have a lot more land to use as the target area :-)
It is better to have resistance to HIV, period, and not be retarded. There is no reason for you to suppose or assume that HIV resistance is related to being retarded.
Fine, then we can continue to abort babies that will be born retarded, and not worry about killing the genes that could make us immune to HIV.
You were the one that setup the false dichotomy with this: What if the severely disabled (with the ability and the inclination to reproduce) have the genes for AIDs resistance? Bird-flu resistance?
Now that you say its possible to have the gene and not be severly disabled, we no longer have to support the severly disabled.
If 1,000 years from now a single gene from a disabled person allows us to survive the next bird flu, then humanity will have been saved by our compassion and grace towards the disabled now.
But that's a false dichotomy; we're just as likely (as you said) to have that gene in 1,000 years even if we don't save the disabled now.
What if the severely disabled (with the ability and the inclination to reproduce) have the genes for AIDs resistance? Bird-flu resistance?
So we're better off being retarded but immune to HIV? If that's the case, that retarded people have resistence to HIV, its likely related to being retarded.
Some people, in the same upbringing, with the same education, manage to escape and go off to college and do well, while the majority don't. This happens in the inner city, and in rural areas. We're even talking members of the same family.
So please, tell me why some manage to end up doing well, and others don't?
Sorry, I'm going to have to call you out here. My wife's late husband died of ALS, so I consider her somewhat of an expert on the disease. If you look closely, ALS seems to be more of an environmental thing. For example, her late husband was deployed in the first Iraq war, and a large majority of soliders deployed with him (greater than 65%) have since developed ALS as well.
Furthermore, his family has ZERO history of ALS, going back to his great, great grandparents. All the evidence she's compiled points to environment, not genes.
Evolution works by *differential* reproductive success. This does not require in any way that we leave the "unfit" out in the snow. Their own genetic disadvantages will see to it that they simply leave fewer offspring.
Yet just about any species WILL do just that; leave the vunerable, especialy to save themselves. As far as genentic disadvantages seeing that they don't reproduce.. you are aware that people severly retarded are getting married and having families, right? That they had to win court battles to allow that (because previously they were being serilized).
Finally, we AREN'T letting the unfit be "selected out naturally" either, we are helping ensure they survive. In other words, we're still messing with natural selection, just keeping them alive instead of the other extereme.
If you can find me a case of a person that is mentally retarded doing something higher than cashiering, please let me know. I would think such a person would make the news.
who comes from that classic heartless eugenics-oriented pov that we as a species are getting physically unfit as we allow the autistic, the downs symdrome, the epileptic, etc., to survive and breed. in classic trollish fashion, he insisted the cavemen had it right when they just left the old, infirm, etc. to die outside in the snow
You do realize this is how evolution works right? That's EXACTLY what every other complex organism does.
Honestly, what is the benefit to our species as a whole to continue to create genetically wrong humans, that can't survive without depending on society the rest of their life? Other animals leave the unfittest behind because otherwise the ENTIRE group will perish. Empathy in any other species would spell the end of that species.
Ya, because its awful that we don't keep creating stupid and poor people.