... and he was excommunicated and almost had himself killed. He was dangerous to the church, they didn't want him around, and they actively tried to make his dissent not an option. How again does this make religion the same as science?
Right. And how many scientists have been ridiculed for radical ideas that broke with accepted science of the day.
He said it should be subjet of tests, not reproduciton. You cannot reproduce yourself, yet you can prove you exist.
Yes, I exist. That much is testable. But WHY do I exist? Can you prove that my parents did the nasty? The very fact that I'm here is very strong evidence that they did, but it just supports the theory that they did the nasty, it does not prove it. My daddy may be a turkey baster for all I know. The only way you could prove that my parents bumped uglies is to have them do it again and record the act as proof. If one of my parents is dead, then we have to take it upon "faith" that they did indeed slap the fat at some point. The fact that I exist is fully testable. The theory that my parents were sexually active is not. I accept that on faith.
The above example is similar to the big bang theory. Yes, the universe exists, but only models can offer any explanation as to WHY it exists and HOW it came to be. Until you can recreate the conditions that existed before the birth of the universe, it is impossible to test the entire big bang theory. And since we can not test the big bang theory, according to the GGP, it is religion.
The parent said, ""Is your hypothesis testable?" If the answer is "yes", it's science, if the answer is "no", it's religion."
So, are the things I mentioned testable or not? Sure you can use a model to explain it, but is that truly testing? I can make two separate models that end up with the same result. They both can't be right. There is only one history.
The point is that TFA says that much of science is based on FAITH. Notice that FAITH is not religion. Yes, religion is based on faith, but not all faith is religious based.
"Get an education, you retard?" Sorry, but I've had it with the ignorant arrogance of American fundamentalist whackos who slow down human progress in the name of ancient superstitions.
Where did I mention religion? What in my comment makes you assume that I am a "fundamentalist whacko"? All I did was support TFA's point that no scientist has proven via experimentation everything they believe. It is literally impossible. So, if what the GP said is true, all scientists have some level of religion. I don't believe that to be the case at all. All scientist have some level in faith; faith that the scientific method works and faith that the models are correct. Just as you took it upon faith that I was some sort of "fundamentalist whacko".
For the record, I am religious, but that's not what my post was about. If you want to debate religion and science, please find yourself a religious scientist and take it up with him/her. You may find a list HERE. And if you happen to speak with Charles Hard Townes, an American Nobel Prize-winning physicist and educator, be sure to call him a retard and tell him to get an education.
However, science encourages you to disagree, debate, and question things for yourself. Religion actively tries to make that not an option because its dangerous for its continued existence.
If I asked those same priests for their evidence and the methods with which I could replicate their results, what excuse would they offer?
They would hand you a Bible and tell you to read it, learn it, and live your life based on its teachings. Then, and only then, will you be able to understand that which you don't understand today.
The problem is, you won't do it. You reject their explanation without testing it. You literally reject religion based on your "faith" that it's imaginary.
But as an above post said. A person can stop being a layman. But no matter how much they study that can't see a Jebus.
Are you sure about that? Have you done infinite testing to prove that theory? No you have not. You assume that it's true because you can not fathom how reading a book can allow you to see something/someone that you believe does not exists. So you don't waste your time with the "experiment".
That's the whole point. No amount of study can allow you to see the big bang, yet I'm willing to bet that you believe in it, as nearly all reputable scientists do. They use evidence and models to prove to themselves that the big bang happened, just as a religious person uses evidence (first hand accounts from people long dead) and a basic understanding that it is impossible to understand everything. When a scientists doesn't know everything about quantum entanglement, they make a guess, just as one who has religion "guesses" that someone/thing far beyond our understanding created everything as we see it. You don't have to agree with them, but don't assume that religion comes to one lightly. And don't assume that religion is a sign of ignorance or stupidity as many of the world's top discoveries came from scientists who were religious, just as many scientists today are religious.
It really is a sad testament to the state of education in this country that so many people have such difficulty understanding the basics foundation of the scientific method.
"Is your hypothesis testable?" If the answer is "yes", it's science, if the answer is "no", it's religion.
Then test and reproduce the big bang for me. Evolve a field mouse to an elephant. Recreate the moon. Make a star from scratch, complete with planets. Create matter from raw energy. Show me the curvature of space/time and recreate it in a lab. Prove that a space traveler does not age when traveling at the speed of light...
The point is that so much that makes up science is not reproducable or testable. That which can be reproduced or tested is not done by all of the scientists with the exception of the very few that did the original experimentation. How many scientists have created quantum entanglements? How many scientists believe they exist? All the scientist who have not created them personally take it on faith that the experiments and the peer reviews were accurate.
Yes, cutting the budget is hard, really hard, but has to be done. The easiest way of doing it would be to follow the 10th Amendment. Take every program that is directly authorized under the Constitution and keep it, everything else gets cut and offered to the states to take over. If the states want it, they can tax their populations and pay for it. If they don't, then they won't.
BAM!!!! Budget crisis solved! If anyone bitches about old ladies starving or corn farmers going out of business, refer them to their respective states.
Yeah, and? Sure, it may suck... but if you can't afford something what makes the next guy responsible for you or your mistakes? (Not saying cancer is a mistake... but what if you go jumping off a roof? Do they have to pay for your stupidity?)/blockquote?
Because we're human beings and not vile repugnant inhuman anti-social Libertarian monsters.
Then I suppose you are donating at least 45% of your after tax income to pay for the treatment of others, correct?
If we have the technology and resources (and in a first world country, we DO have the resources) in our society to cure the sick, aren't we morally obligated to do so?
I don't know where you are from, but I'm in the United States. Last month, our government spent eight times what it took in. Our total deficit is larger than our GDP. We're going to have to cut trillions from the budget just to break even and then to tack on another few trillion to pay for socialized medicine, we will need to cut from somewhere else. Currently, the government is about to shut down because one side wants to cut $60 Billion from the budget out of a deficit of about $1.6 Trillion, and the other side is balking saying that it is way too much ("Six million elderly will starve!!!).
Of course, if government starts paying for healthcare, expect the total bill to go up as no one will have any reservations about going to see a doctor for problems that they feel are not worth paying for themselves.
Obviously, we do NOT have the resources and we certainly don't have the will to free up the resources needed to have government pay for the sick. If our debt was paid off and we had a surplus of a few trillion sitting around, I'd say it's a great idea. I don't see that ever happening.
Yeah, but you have to love the terminology: "Internet hackers". "Your honor, I swear -- I never hacked the internet!"
I think the term "Internet hackers" is like "road warriors". When you hear road warrior, you don't think of a warrior attacking the street. You think of a warrior ON the road, just like Internet hackers are hackers that use the Internet.
Street fighter would be another example. Although, come to think of it, "crime fighter" would back up your point.
Sorry, care to explain how defunding planned parenthood counts as "looking out for people instead of businesses"? I mean I guess it's neutral to businesses and hurts many, many people, so you could say the Republicans are focusing more on people in that sense.
Sorry. I was considering unborn children as being people. If nothing else, you could consider the religious right people and since Planned Parenthood is a business, Republicans chose people over business.
Still, if that's not good enough, Republicans in my state are doing their best to block gambling here. Gambling is big business. Those that lose everything to the gambling business are people. (Personally, I'm a free will kinda guy. You lose it all at the casino, that's your problem)
Then many Republicans are against things like public transportation (usually run by or supported by big business), stupid carbon trading schemes (carbon traders are a business), and even against Obamacare, which according to every Democrat I've talked to, is adored by the big insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
Any of these prove the point. Neither Republicans nor Democrats do anything ALWAYS, but partisan little bitches that can't see beyond their own the-other-team-is-always-wrong attitude will ALWAYS say that the side they don't agree with is ALWAYS wrong. We can call them the "extremists". This goes for both sides, btw.
The Tea Baggers only make up 20 members of the House, so this resolution was supported even by moderate Republicans too.
I didn't know we had that many homosexuals in the House. More power to them.
Oh! You meant Tea Partiers. I see what you did there. You used a gay sex act as an insult to show that you are bigoted against gays and conservatives.
In that case, don't forget the 10 Democrats that voted for it. I guess it's true when the Tea Party says their members include D's, R's and I's. Who knew that smaller government, lower taxes and states rights would resonate with so many people? I guess that whole "Constitution thing" is finally starting to gain traction.
The fact is that Republicans always look out for business interests over the people's interests, no matter what
BZZZZT!!! Wrong.
Since you said always, I only need one single example of Republicans looking out for the people over business to prove you wrong.
Planned parenthood.
There are others, but I only needed one. So, it appears that the Democrats and Republicans are both equal on this. They both look out for business sometimes, and sometimes they don't.
Sorry to bust your bubble there, Doc, but absolutes really piss me off and show that you ALWAYS side against the party you throw the absolutes at.
The problem with food is that it isn't so much what you're eating, but how many calories you're eating, and whether you have any vitamin deficiencies.
I don't know if that's true. Take the Atkins diet as an example. I lost 30 pounds on the Atkins diet in about 4 months. My diet consisted mostly of steak, chicken with skin, cheese, bacon, butter, butter, pork rinds, butter and vegetables, usually salad drenched in bleu cheese dressing. The whole diet is basically this: you may eat all you want, as long as you keep your carb intake to under 20 grams per day. Now keep in mind that one non-diet soda contains more than 20 carbs. I would literally go into a restaurant and order the double (2/3 lb) cheese burger with sauteed onions (no bun, no fries) and a salad with double dressing. At home, I would make two ribeye steaks with a table spoon of butter on each one with a salad (with dressing) and a vegetable (more butter). Breakfast would be half a dozen eggs with half a pound of bacon. I lost weight on this diet and my blood pressure actually went DOWN. My wife could not do it. She would eat as much as I would and still feel hungry. For that matter, every man I know to try it loved the diet while the women I know seem to have trouble.
So, I believe WHAT you eat is more important than how much. Dr. Atkins believed that insulin levels had more to do with weight gain and heart health than anything else. I don't know for sure, but the diet worked for me. The sad part is that even though I was much healthier eating like this, if the government had their way, I would be forbidden from eating like that.
I have since had to go back to my usual high carb diet and gained all the weight back. I am constantly having to feed myself or risk becoming hypoglycemic. The diet was great for me, but we can't really afford it. Rice, pasta and bread are cheap. Steak and seafood is expensive. I now have kids and I don't know what effect a low carb diet will have on their health. Also, there is no way my wife will do the diet again. Finally, there is no way I could sit there and eat fajitas wrapped in lettuce leaves while watching everyone around me enjoy them on tortillas.
Also, the BMI is fucking ridiculous. I've got friend who did/do body building, and they'll tell you that they're actually obese, based on the BMI that is. It's at this point that people say "but but but there's other measures you use in combination", the looser the legal policy is, the more useless this bill is (in fact, it will just add administrative overhead). The tighter it is, the more you're going to be victimizing these other people.
Remember our last president? The one who jogged so much his knees were shot and had to start riding bikes? The one where the secret service had to train up just so they could keep up with him?
Remember him? He was overweight by government standards.
Yes, the president of the United States, known for his robust good health, is officially overweight, according to the standards of the National Institutes of Health. At 6 feet and 194 pounds, his body mass index, or B.M.I., a measurement of height relative to weight, is 26.4, and 25 or above is officially overweight for both sexes.
Fascism, with its merging of corporate, political, and military power, is almost complete in America. Too much 'rah rah USA, we so free, we so great, god just loves United States !', from a young age. Brainwashed people don't see it coming. Those who do go crazy trying to get others to see it.
Even today, people who own a car, or a home, or even a business think they are part of the ownership class. They cheer the corporations on as if they will benefit. They believe they are part of the people who own enough wealth to create international policy, national policy, and military support of that policy. Silly people, they think they are part of the rich, when all they make is hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
If you aren't making governments bend to your desire, you are not part of the ownership class.
Don't be a sheeple! Don't let yourself be one of the brainwashed masses. Never buy stock in one of the corporate meat grinders that makes you part owner and gives you voting rights. Move to another country where you will not be a slave to our corporate masters. If the evil corporate empires have taken all countries over, move "off the grid" to the some rainforest or jungle somewhere and learn to live off whatever you can catch or find to eat. I don't give a fuck where you go, just get the hell out of here and STFU with the "everyone is a fascist" bullshit. Either STFU and do something about it or just STFU. It doesn't matter to me as either option has STFU in it.
Awe Come ON!!!!! At least read the best part. Here, I'll include it here. Good thing you didn't read it since I thought up an update and caught a typo.
You seem to understand the mommy thing. Let me see if that helps: Pseudonym Authority: Mom, ArcherB turned the bathroom light on. He's wasting electricity. Mom: Well, pause your XBox game, take the elevator upstairs and tell ArcherB that using lights is a waste of electricity. He doesn't need the light if he sits while he pees like you and I do. Better yet, fire up that hex-core i-9 and shoot him an email.
And I hope your day is good as well. Now I have to go sit in traffic with my engine idling because the greenies don't want to build more freeways because it might mean more cars on the road.
I got exactly what you said. And it was not a refutation at all, it was an attack on his circumstances. Being a hypocrite does not preclude him from being correct. You did nothing to address his argument.
joocemann: Mommy, burning tires is bad for the environment! Make ArcherB stop! ArcherB: But Moooooooom! joocemann was doing it too!! Waaaaaaaaaaaaah! Blah blah blah bitch bitch bitch!
Again, you missed the point. I'm not just saying he's a hypocrite. I'm pointing out that it's goal of these people is not saving the environment. Sure, people like the OP simply don't have the intelligence to grasp that they are contributing to the problem. To which my response is that I reject their argument simply because they don't have the intelligence to fully understand the issue and therefor have no authority to argue from. They do not understand that they too will have to make sacrifices and with that knowledge, which I gladly provided, they might reconsider their position. Then, there are people like you, who continue to waste energy trying to explain to me that the original comment that wasting energy is bad is a valid one. You try to argue that the hypocrisy is irrelevant, yet you are simply incapable of understanding that you are actually a bigger hypocrite than the OP.
Finally, the whole movement loses credibility to the actions of the supporters. See, when people like Al Gore lecture me about my energy usage and then live in a house that uses more energy than my entire block, I realize that this is not about the environment at all. When they leave their fleet of SUV's idling while they give a speech for $100,000, they prove that their words are meaningless. Why would I believe Al Gore's message of environmental disaster is he does not believe it himself? This is about power and money. I'll give Al Gore the benefit of doubt and assume he is all about the money, but the politicians who continue to press this are all about power. If they can control CO2 emissions, they can force you to take public transportation. If you are taking public transportation, which they control, they can control where you go and when. They can even use it to "influence" where you live and what kind of home you live in. They can control what you do in your home by limiting the temperature, what appliances you are allowed to use and when. I'm waiting to see which politician funds a study to prove that watching FoxNews uses more energy than watching MSNBC!
The supporters of these politicians just like the idea of controlling others. They like to claim that they are making a difference by forcing others to conserve, but the simple fact that they continue to be wasteful shows that it's not about conservation at all. They just like to stick it to others. They are quick to say, "No SUV's" because they don't drive one. They are quick to ban cars in cities because they take the bus. They push to limit the raising of livestock because they are vegetarians (which is Native American for "bad hunter"). But the second someone comes out and says, "YOU FIRST", people like you are quick to make excuses for the hypocrites because you don't do the things that they are against. It's like those that claim smoking tobacco should be illegal, but the illegality of pot is an affront to personal freedom.
You seem to understand the mommy thing. Let me see if that helps: Pseudonym Authority: Mom, ArcherB turned the bathroom light on. He's wasting electricity. Mom: Well, pause your XBox game, take the elevator upstairs and tell ArcherB that he using lights is a waste of electricity. He doesn't need the light if he sits while he pees like you and I do.
Slashdot Mirror
... and he was excommunicated and almost had himself killed. He was dangerous to the church, they didn't want him around, and they actively tried to make his dissent not an option. How again does this make religion the same as science?
Right. And how many scientists have been ridiculed for radical ideas that broke with accepted science of the day.
Here is a list of a few:
http://www.megafoundation.org/Genius/GeniusHall.html
He said it should be subjet of tests, not reproduciton. You cannot reproduce yourself, yet you can prove you exist.
Yes, I exist. That much is testable. But WHY do I exist? Can you prove that my parents did the nasty? The very fact that I'm here is very strong evidence that they did, but it just supports the theory that they did the nasty, it does not prove it. My daddy may be a turkey baster for all I know. The only way you could prove that my parents bumped uglies is to have them do it again and record the act as proof. If one of my parents is dead, then we have to take it upon "faith" that they did indeed slap the fat at some point. The fact that I exist is fully testable. The theory that my parents were sexually active is not. I accept that on faith.
The above example is similar to the big bang theory. Yes, the universe exists, but only models can offer any explanation as to WHY it exists and HOW it came to be. Until you can recreate the conditions that existed before the birth of the universe, it is impossible to test the entire big bang theory. And since we can not test the big bang theory, according to the GGP, it is religion.
The parent said, ""Is your hypothesis testable?" If the answer is "yes", it's science, if the answer is "no", it's religion."
So, are the things I mentioned testable or not? Sure you can use a model to explain it, but is that truly testing? I can make two separate models that end up with the same result. They both can't be right. There is only one history.
The point is that TFA says that much of science is based on FAITH. Notice that FAITH is not religion. Yes, religion is based on faith, but not all faith is religious based.
"Get an education, you retard?" Sorry, but I've had it with the ignorant arrogance of American fundamentalist whackos who slow down human progress in the name of ancient superstitions.
Where did I mention religion? What in my comment makes you assume that I am a "fundamentalist whacko"? All I did was support TFA's point that no scientist has proven via experimentation everything they believe. It is literally impossible. So, if what the GP said is true, all scientists have some level of religion. I don't believe that to be the case at all. All scientist have some level in faith; faith that the scientific method works and faith that the models are correct. Just as you took it upon faith that I was some sort of "fundamentalist whacko".
For the record, I am religious, but that's not what my post was about. If you want to debate religion and science, please find yourself a religious scientist and take it up with him/her. You may find a list HERE. And if you happen to speak with Charles Hard Townes, an American Nobel Prize-winning physicist and educator, be sure to call him a retard and tell him to get an education.
However, science encourages you to disagree, debate, and question things for yourself. Religion actively tries to make that not an option because its dangerous for its continued existence.
Tell that to Marin Luther
If I asked those same priests for their evidence and the methods with which I could replicate their results, what excuse would they offer?
They would hand you a Bible and tell you to read it, learn it, and live your life based on its teachings. Then, and only then, will you be able to understand that which you don't understand today.
The problem is, you won't do it. You reject their explanation without testing it. You literally reject religion based on your "faith" that it's imaginary.
But as an above post said. A person can stop being a layman. But no matter how much they study that can't see a Jebus.
Are you sure about that? Have you done infinite testing to prove that theory? No you have not. You assume that it's true because you can not fathom how reading a book can allow you to see something/someone that you believe does not exists. So you don't waste your time with the "experiment".
That's the whole point. No amount of study can allow you to see the big bang, yet I'm willing to bet that you believe in it, as nearly all reputable scientists do. They use evidence and models to prove to themselves that the big bang happened, just as a religious person uses evidence (first hand accounts from people long dead) and a basic understanding that it is impossible to understand everything. When a scientists doesn't know everything about quantum entanglement, they make a guess, just as one who has religion "guesses" that someone/thing far beyond our understanding created everything as we see it. You don't have to agree with them, but don't assume that religion comes to one lightly. And don't assume that religion is a sign of ignorance or stupidity as many of the world's top discoveries came from scientists who were religious, just as many scientists today are religious.
It really is a sad testament to the state of education in this country that so many people have such difficulty understanding the basics foundation of the scientific method.
"Is your hypothesis testable?" If the answer is "yes", it's science, if the answer is "no", it's religion.
Then test and reproduce the big bang for me. Evolve a field mouse to an elephant. Recreate the moon. Make a star from scratch, complete with planets. Create matter from raw energy. Show me the curvature of space/time and recreate it in a lab. Prove that a space traveler does not age when traveling at the speed of light...
The point is that so much that makes up science is not reproducable or testable. That which can be reproduced or tested is not done by all of the scientists with the exception of the very few that did the original experimentation. How many scientists have created quantum entanglements? How many scientists believe they exist? All the scientist who have not created them personally take it on faith that the experiments and the peer reviews were accurate.
Yes, cutting the budget is hard, really hard, but has to be done. The easiest way of doing it would be to follow the 10th Amendment. Take every program that is directly authorized under the Constitution and keep it, everything else gets cut and offered to the states to take over. If the states want it, they can tax their populations and pay for it. If they don't, then they won't.
BAM!!!! Budget crisis solved! If anyone bitches about old ladies starving or corn farmers going out of business, refer them to their respective states.
www.commodoreusa.net is down already...
Maybe it's running on a C64.
Then I suppose you are donating at least 45% of your after tax income to pay for the treatment of others, correct?
And our daily lives are made possible by the pooling of ressources. I don't have kids, and yet some of my taxes go to school districts.
No, but I bet your parent's had kids who went to school on the state's dime. THAT is what you are paying for.
For some reason, I'd rather save on the money spent on the military than on the money spent on health.
Then who would protect your right to say that?
If we have the technology and resources (and in a first world country, we DO have the resources) in our society to cure the sick, aren't we morally obligated to do so?
I don't know where you are from, but I'm in the United States. Last month, our government spent eight times what it took in. Our total deficit is larger than our GDP. We're going to have to cut trillions from the budget just to break even and then to tack on another few trillion to pay for socialized medicine, we will need to cut from somewhere else. Currently, the government is about to shut down because one side wants to cut $60 Billion from the budget out of a deficit of about $1.6 Trillion, and the other side is balking saying that it is way too much ("Six million elderly will starve!!!).
Of course, if government starts paying for healthcare, expect the total bill to go up as no one will have any reservations about going to see a doctor for problems that they feel are not worth paying for themselves.
Obviously, we do NOT have the resources and we certainly don't have the will to free up the resources needed to have government pay for the sick. If our debt was paid off and we had a surplus of a few trillion sitting around, I'd say it's a great idea. I don't see that ever happening.
Yeah, but you have to love the terminology: "Internet hackers". "Your honor, I swear -- I never hacked the internet!"
I think the term "Internet hackers" is like "road warriors". When you hear road warrior, you don't think of a warrior attacking the street. You think of a warrior ON the road, just like Internet hackers are hackers that use the Internet.
Street fighter would be another example. Although, come to think of it, "crime fighter" would back up your point.
claiming that they will deliver nearly unparalleled advances in CPU performance
What's the point of having 10 cores then ?
I laughed at NEARLY. Nearly unparalleled is not unparalleled. Not unparalleled is... well, paralleled.
Sorry, care to explain how defunding planned parenthood counts as "looking out for people instead of businesses"? I mean I guess it's neutral to businesses and hurts many, many people, so you could say the Republicans are focusing more on people in that sense.
Sorry. I was considering unborn children as being people. If nothing else, you could consider the religious right people and since Planned Parenthood is a business, Republicans chose people over business.
Still, if that's not good enough, Republicans in my state are doing their best to block gambling here. Gambling is big business. Those that lose everything to the gambling business are people. (Personally, I'm a free will kinda guy. You lose it all at the casino, that's your problem)
Then many Republicans are against things like public transportation (usually run by or supported by big business), stupid carbon trading schemes (carbon traders are a business), and even against Obamacare, which according to every Democrat I've talked to, is adored by the big insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
Any of these prove the point. Neither Republicans nor Democrats do anything ALWAYS, but partisan little bitches that can't see beyond their own the-other-team-is-always-wrong attitude will ALWAYS say that the side they don't agree with is ALWAYS wrong. We can call them the "extremists". This goes for both sides, btw.
The Tea Baggers only make up 20 members of the House, so this resolution was supported even by moderate Republicans too.
I didn't know we had that many homosexuals in the House. More power to them.
Oh! You meant Tea Partiers. I see what you did there. You used a gay sex act as an insult to show that you are bigoted against gays and conservatives.
In that case, don't forget the 10 Democrats that voted for it. I guess it's true when the Tea Party says their members include D's, R's and I's. Who knew that smaller government, lower taxes and states rights would resonate with so many people? I guess that whole "Constitution thing" is finally starting to gain traction.
"Obama's thugs"
Yeah, you're not objective at all. Next time say that in the very beginning so we know to write you off as a partisan nitwit.
You are correct. The correct terms are Pelosi Hippies and Reid's Rebels. Shame Howard Dean isn't bigger or we could call them Dean's Dumbasses.
The fact is that Republicans always look out for business interests over the people's interests, no matter what
BZZZZT!!! Wrong.
Since you said always, I only need one single example of Republicans looking out for the people over business to prove you wrong.
Planned parenthood.
There are others, but I only needed one. So, it appears that the Democrats and Republicans are both equal on this. They both look out for business sometimes, and sometimes they don't.
Sorry to bust your bubble there, Doc, but absolutes really piss me off and show that you ALWAYS side against the party you throw the absolutes at.
The problem with food is that it isn't so much what you're eating, but how many calories you're eating, and whether you have any vitamin deficiencies.
I don't know if that's true. Take the Atkins diet as an example. I lost 30 pounds on the Atkins diet in about 4 months. My diet consisted mostly of steak, chicken with skin, cheese, bacon, butter, butter, pork rinds, butter and vegetables, usually salad drenched in bleu cheese dressing. The whole diet is basically this: you may eat all you want, as long as you keep your carb intake to under 20 grams per day. Now keep in mind that one non-diet soda contains more than 20 carbs. I would literally go into a restaurant and order the double (2/3 lb) cheese burger with sauteed onions (no bun, no fries) and a salad with double dressing. At home, I would make two ribeye steaks with a table spoon of butter on each one with a salad (with dressing) and a vegetable (more butter). Breakfast would be half a dozen eggs with half a pound of bacon. I lost weight on this diet and my blood pressure actually went DOWN. My wife could not do it. She would eat as much as I would and still feel hungry. For that matter, every man I know to try it loved the diet while the women I know seem to have trouble.
So, I believe WHAT you eat is more important than how much. Dr. Atkins believed that insulin levels had more to do with weight gain and heart health than anything else. I don't know for sure, but the diet worked for me. The sad part is that even though I was much healthier eating like this, if the government had their way, I would be forbidden from eating like that.
I have since had to go back to my usual high carb diet and gained all the weight back. I am constantly having to feed myself or risk becoming hypoglycemic. The diet was great for me, but we can't really afford it. Rice, pasta and bread are cheap. Steak and seafood is expensive. I now have kids and I don't know what effect a low carb diet will have on their health. Also, there is no way my wife will do the diet again. Finally, there is no way I could sit there and eat fajitas wrapped in lettuce leaves while watching everyone around me enjoy them on tortillas.
First, mod parent up.
Next, to back up this point:
Also, the BMI is fucking ridiculous. I've got friend who did/do body building, and they'll tell you that they're actually obese, based on the BMI that is. It's at this point that people say "but but but there's other measures you use in combination", the looser the legal policy is, the more useless this bill is (in fact, it will just add administrative overhead). The tighter it is, the more you're going to be victimizing these other people.
Remember our last president? The one who jogged so much his knees were shot and had to start riding bikes? The one where the secret service had to train up just so they could keep up with him?
Remember him? He was overweight by government standards.
Yes, the president of the United States, known for his robust good health, is officially overweight, according to the standards of the National Institutes of Health. At 6 feet and 194 pounds, his body mass index, or B.M.I., a measurement of height relative to weight, is 26.4, and 25 or above is officially overweight for both sexes.
But whats the point if it is just a human-milk like substance that comes from a cow. Thats no fun to milk.
If you ever "milk" a human, you'll find that it's not much fun either.
Fascism, with its merging of corporate, political, and military power, is almost complete in America.
Too much 'rah rah USA, we so free, we so great, god just loves United States !', from a young age.
Brainwashed people don't see it coming. Those who do go crazy trying to get others to see it.
Even today, people who own a car, or a home, or even a business think they are part of the ownership class.
They cheer the corporations on as if they will benefit.
They believe they are part of the people who own enough wealth to create international policy, national policy, and military support of that policy.
Silly people, they think they are part of the rich, when all they make is hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
If you aren't making governments bend to your desire, you are not part of the ownership class.
Don't be a sheeple! Don't let yourself be one of the brainwashed masses. Never buy stock in one of the corporate meat grinders that makes you part owner and gives you voting rights. Move to another country where you will not be a slave to our corporate masters. If the evil corporate empires have taken all countries over, move "off the grid" to the some rainforest or jungle somewhere and learn to live off whatever you can catch or find to eat. I don't give a fuck where you go, just get the hell out of here and STFU with the "everyone is a fascist" bullshit. Either STFU and do something about it or just STFU. It doesn't matter to me as either option has STFU in it.
Awe Come ON!!!!! At least read the best part. Here, I'll include it here. Good thing you didn't read it since I thought up an update and caught a typo.
You seem to understand the mommy thing. Let me see if that helps:
Pseudonym Authority: Mom, ArcherB turned the bathroom light on. He's wasting electricity.
Mom: Well, pause your XBox game, take the elevator upstairs and tell ArcherB that using lights is a waste of electricity. He doesn't need the light if he sits while he pees like you and I do. Better yet, fire up that hex-core i-9 and shoot him an email.
And I hope your day is good as well. Now I have to go sit in traffic with my engine idling because the greenies don't want to build more freeways because it might mean more cars on the road.
I got exactly what you said. And it was not a refutation at all, it was an attack on his circumstances. Being a hypocrite does not preclude him from being correct. You did nothing to address his argument.
joocemann: Mommy, burning tires is bad for the environment! Make ArcherB stop!
ArcherB: But Moooooooom! joocemann was doing it too!! Waaaaaaaaaaaaah! Blah blah blah bitch bitch bitch!
Again, you missed the point. I'm not just saying he's a hypocrite. I'm pointing out that it's goal of these people is not saving the environment. Sure, people like the OP simply don't have the intelligence to grasp that they are contributing to the problem. To which my response is that I reject their argument simply because they don't have the intelligence to fully understand the issue and therefor have no authority to argue from. They do not understand that they too will have to make sacrifices and with that knowledge, which I gladly provided, they might reconsider their position. Then, there are people like you, who continue to waste energy trying to explain to me that the original comment that wasting energy is bad is a valid one. You try to argue that the hypocrisy is irrelevant, yet you are simply incapable of understanding that you are actually a bigger hypocrite than the OP.
Finally, the whole movement loses credibility to the actions of the supporters. See, when people like Al Gore lecture me about my energy usage and then live in a house that uses more energy than my entire block, I realize that this is not about the environment at all. When they leave their fleet of SUV's idling while they give a speech for $100,000, they prove that their words are meaningless. Why would I believe Al Gore's message of environmental disaster is he does not believe it himself? This is about power and money. I'll give Al Gore the benefit of doubt and assume he is all about the money, but the politicians who continue to press this are all about power. If they can control CO2 emissions, they can force you to take public transportation. If you are taking public transportation, which they control, they can control where you go and when. They can even use it to "influence" where you live and what kind of home you live in. They can control what you do in your home by limiting the temperature, what appliances you are allowed to use and when. I'm waiting to see which politician funds a study to prove that watching FoxNews uses more energy than watching MSNBC!
The supporters of these politicians just like the idea of controlling others. They like to claim that they are making a difference by forcing others to conserve, but the simple fact that they continue to be wasteful shows that it's not about conservation at all. They just like to stick it to others. They are quick to say, "No SUV's" because they don't drive one. They are quick to ban cars in cities because they take the bus. They push to limit the raising of livestock because they are vegetarians (which is Native American for "bad hunter"). But the second someone comes out and says, "YOU FIRST", people like you are quick to make excuses for the hypocrites because you don't do the things that they are against. It's like those that claim smoking tobacco should be illegal, but the illegality of pot is an affront to personal freedom.
You seem to understand the mommy thing. Let me see if that helps:
Pseudonym Authority: Mom, ArcherB turned the bathroom light on. He's wasting electricity.
Mom: Well, pause your XBox game, take the elevator upstairs and tell ArcherB that he using lights is a waste of electricity. He doesn't need the light if he sits while he pees like you and I do.