Yes, a lot of factors can affect your likeliness of getting cancer. I am no expert by any means. Seems we can go one way (cancer) or the other way (positive mutation). I'd guess the positive mutations are less likely to occur and also less likely to be transmitted to the next generation. These days humanity is somewhat defeating the 'survival of the fittest' model. With modern medicine and people living longer. Those with some disease, and those without.. both being more likely to produce viable offspring than throughout history. Viable as in able to live due to a lower infant mortality rate. Yeah cancer sucks, but if cancer doesn't get us. Something else certainly will. Life is not infinite to the individual.. but our genes are more likely to outlive us. At least until the Sun dies.. if we haven't moved elsewhere by then in a few billion years.



>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^honkeytonk73:
My father passed due to the same cancer. If caught early enough it can be treatable. In his case it was caught a bit late, and was an extremely agressive form.
Hitchins was quite a smoker and drinker.. so that could have contributed. But then again, it could just have been a stray cosmic ray that plowed through our atmosphere, hit him in the wrong spot at the wrong moment, and eventually led to cancer.
Most cancers are caused by the natural environment. We and the Earth are being bombarded by high energy particles all the time. From our sun, things in our universe, things in our soil.
So much for an ideal world/universe designed specifically for humans.

From what I know, cancer is both environmental and genetic. You're either genetically predisposed to have a potential for cancer or you're not. If it's in your DNA, then it can be triggered by external forces.
I don't know how that works with what you say about high energy particles. I've heard that those particles can have an affect on one's DNA. Some think that we can thank those particles for the mutations that contributed to evolution.

>> ^honkeytonk73:

My father passed due to the same cancer. If caught early enough it can be treatable. In his case it was caught a bit late, and was an extremely agressive form.
Hitchins was quite a smoker and drinker.. so that could have contributed. But then again, it could just have been a stray cosmic ray that plowed through our atmosphere, hit him in the wrong spot at the wrong moment, and eventually led to cancer.
Most cancers are caused by the natural environment. We and the Earth are being bombarded by high energy particles all the time. From our sun, things in our universe, things in our soil.
So much for an ideal world/universe designed specifically for humans.

From what I know, cancer is both environmental and genetic. You're either genetically predisposed to have a potential for cancer or you're not. If it's in your DNA, then it can be triggered by external forces.

I don't know how that works with what you say about high energy particles. I've heard that those particles can have an affect on one's DNA. Some think that we can thank those particles for the mutations that contributed to evolution.

My father passed due to the same cancer. If caught early enough it can be treatable. In his case it was caught a bit late, and was an extremely agressive form.

Hitchins was quite a smoker and drinker.. so that could have contributed. But then again, it could just have been a stray cosmic ray that plowed through our atmosphere, hit him in the wrong spot at the wrong moment, and eventually led to cancer.

Most cancers are caused by the natural environment. We and the Earth are being bombarded by high energy particles all the time. From our sun, things in our universe, things in our soil.

So much for an ideal world/universe designed specifically for humans.

@blankfist you're such a kool-aid drinker your brain doesn't even properly process sights and sounds anymore.

I'm not trying to offend you brother. I think you are the cats pajamas. That's just how I see it. I could claim that you aren't trying to comprehend democracy, or decry the long list of shallow epithets (statist, authoritarian, communist, nazi, fascist, socialist, Moaist, Stalinist, Marxist, government cock sucker, cult member, proponent of violence, thief etc.) that you use here on a daily basis - terms which are twice as offensive as anything I've said above - but I don't, because your opinion is your opinion and I feel perfectly comfortable in our disagreement. It doesn't offend me that you think what I believe is wrong. More power to you.

You don't seem to see the double standard here, probably because you believe yourself to be absolutely objective in your judgments. You are just as partisan as I, if not more so, and your point of view is no less subjective than mine or V's or NR's.

I believe you mean well, and I try to be open minded, but the fact that I can't get a straight answer to...

"What does 'people have direct control of the market' mean, and how does it specifically translate into either 'stopping a corporate dictatorship' or achieving meaningful change?"

..makes me think you don't have an answer. If I could get a satisfying answer to this question - a tough task no doubt - it would do a great deal to improve my confidence in your ideology. It's at the crux of my skepticism towards free marketism. If you don't like tough questions, then by all means, feel free to turn the tables and hit me with your own. If I can't answer them, then you win!!!

I haven't always had such a negative view of the free market. It's only after studying it and talking to free market libertarians that I've changed my perspective. For what it's worth, you are probably the person who has informed me the most on free market politics, so either you need a better sales pitch or our world views are just dramatically different.

Yes, I do think you are misguided, but isn't that always the tacet implication in political argument? You've called me a cult member and a kool aid drinker, which sounds like you think I'm misguided too? I'm OK with this. Why do you fucking care so much? If I think you are wrong, it doesn't mean you are wrong, just wrong to me.

love, your friend and sparring partner, distoepeeanfewchertooday

The accusation that America is 'becoming Greece' is not unfounded. Greece is foundering because it has billions in unfunded liabilities and no effective way to pay them. This precise malady is already happening in the US. California, NY, Illinois, and other liberally controlled states are bankrupt because of huge social obligations they can't possibly pay for.

The U.S. has been headed this way for decades in a slow way, but it's ramped up rapidly under Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social security are plummeting into insolvency. The Health Care plan increases federal obligations by billions. Cap & Trade constricts energy supply while increasing costs. Every act the federal government takes is one that pulls money from the private sector into the public sector.

The warning cry that America is heading towards a "Greece" style fiscal meltdown is blatantly obvious and even laypersons can easily see that unbridled, unchecked social spending is what has ruined Europe's economy.

This is - of course - exactly why left wing koolaid drinkers like this video guy are in a state of panic. The European collapse strips away the lie that they have been living in for decades. It proves cradle-to-grave liberal socialist states are only 3 hairs and some air away from collapse, and that capitalism is the solution. "Austerity measures..." What a nice left wing whitewash of the fact that they are being forced by necessitiy to use (GASP!) conservative economic policy in order to prevent themselves from absolute self destruction. So to save it's @$$, Greece is having to privitize health care, as well as cut bloated, unsustainable social spending. Gee - where have we heard that before?

So it's no surprise that leftist hacks like Krugman are in denial over this. The entire approach they've believed in their whole lives has been proven to be a total sham.

@blankfist: Yeah, I do get that, but it's that thing I kinda dislike which is 'you may not get annoyed about anything else if you're not getting annoyed about this'. It's also a case of non-smokers are hardly bitching and moaning about it all the time, we just went and got smoking stopped in places where it has no place. No non-smoker wants cigarette smoke wafting over them while they eat a fine dinner, or are waiting for a train in an underground station, or standing in a lift.

Plus I was taking issue, as he did different stuff on the same topic in the other video about him not being able to smoke in places, so he has a real bee in his bonnet about it. It's perfectly reasonable (I think) for non smokers to not have smoke blown over us, forcing us to breath it. It's not the like ONLY effect is that we have smelly clothes (although I don't see why that should be forced on us either), it's killing us.

As a coffee drinker I do not spit a sample of my drink on people standing next to me do I?

Edit: Trancecoach said it much better ^ ^ ^ ^

"Men/man" are not being said in most circumstances because the male sex is the norm in our discourse, and therefore almost everything gender neutral and associated with the male sex is usually ascribed to men. What this dude forgets to mention is that this has both positive and negative effects on men as a group and individuals. A man who takes a day off to take care of his sick kids is a fucking hero to women. A woman just does her job. A man who doesn't take a day off is completely ok, but if a woman doesn't she will be seen as selfish and uncaring.

This video only polarizes the debate by saying that feminism is to be blamed for misandry. Certain feminists (read idiots) surely hate men, but they are not the norm. Most educated feminists I've met (there are exceptions and like I said before they are idiots) agree that both men and women lose out due to how our language assumes men as the norm and women as the exception; how language is skewed to see for example aggression and dominance as manly and something to strive for and giving in to another's wishes as being a pussy, instead of it being considerate and socially intelligent.

His claim that you never hear about men being raped used to be accurate, but not any more. I see it more and more in the news here in Sweden, as well as news reporting women who physically abuse and sexually harass men.

And the ramblings about "women and children" actually says more about how women, rather than men, are seen: as helpless persons comparable to children that men have to protect. He has some points such as using neutral words to dehumanize individuals to make mistreatment easier and the fact that what is not said can be just as important as what is said. In general, though he just takes random clips which support his view. Talk about being biased.

He makes it sound as though this is some sort of secret plot, which I find ridiculous. The exact same thing could be argued about being white vs being black, being Christian vs being Jewish or Muslim, for eating meat vs being a vegetarian, for being a drinker vs a non-drinker and so on. It has to do with certain things being the norm and others being seen as the exception. The exception is always pointed out. Yes it is horrible that all men gets accused of being rapists, murderers and paedophiles but this video just sucks.

Sorry bro

Summary: A secret plot by feminists is not the reason why "men/man" is left out a lot in our language, normative associations are. The exception is always made explicit, the norm is expected and is therefore not made explicit.

Bottled-water drinker here. She makes a convincing argument, but in her push to convince me, it seems like she contradicted herself. First she says that most tap water is cleaner than bottled water. Then later on she says that lots of tap water is polluted. Well, which is it?

The smart move is to buy a home-based reverse osmosis system for a few hundred bucks so you can control the quality of your tap water yourself.

>> ^cybrbeast:
Alcohol wasn't designed for anything, it was discovered because it was recreational. Cigarettes weren't designed to be deadly, tobacco was discovered because it was recreational.
What are the positive benefits of alcohol besides recreation and a few vague and tenuous health benefits?
wiki
Also, studies indicate that the proportion of men with alcohol dependence is higher than the proportion of women, 7% and 2.5% respectively, although women are more vulnerable to long-term consequences of alcoholism. Around 90% of adults in United States consume alcohol, and more than 700,000 of them are treated daily for alcoholism.
[...]
Of the adult US population, at least 75% are drinkers; and about 6% of the total group are alcoholics. In groups which are almost 100% drinkers, the alcoholism rate is about 8%. Many reports state that about 73% of felonies are alcohol-related. One survey shows that in about 67% of child-beating cases, 41% of forcible rape cases, 80% of wife-battering, 72% of stabbings, and 83% of homicides, either the attacker or the victim or both had been drinking."

Cigarettes may kill people, but I doubt they hurt families as much as an alcoholic father can do. So lets ban alcohol, lets ban fast food, lets ban everything. Or just let people be responsible for themselves and make their own decisions.
>> ^spoco2:
Alcohol? Not designed to be addictive (some people are to it, but that's true of almost anything... you can find someone addicted to most anything these days), has positive benefits, and when drunk in moderation has little to no negative effect.



Cigarettes may not have been initially designed to be deadly, but they sure as hell have been 'improved' to be as addictive as they can possibly be to ensure that they keep those smokers going until they die.

You're missing the point in regards to drinking vs smoking. YES I AGREE that drinking can and does lead to bad things... but it doesn't have to. When consumed responsibly it does not have to result in anything bad occurring, it can act as a social lubricant, make good food better, etc. etc. Also, we all know how successful banning it turned out to be. The issues with alcohol, over and above alcoholism, is a societal one. If you got rid of alcohol from the poor and desperate, they would find something else to use to the same effect and still commit crime, and beat their wives etc. It's not the direct problem.

Also, you cite 7% of men and 2.5% of woman as being alcoholic... ok, so for that percentage then drinking should not be an option. Now... how about smoking? What percentage of smokers become addicted? Pretty darn close to 100%, and of those there are NO POSITIVE BENEFITS. None...

Now, I have never said it should be banned, never said it should be illegal, but it should not be allowed in areas where us non smokers frequent, because we don't deserve to be in a restaurant trying to enjoy a meal only to be assaulted by smoke. Nor do we wish to be waiting for a train and being engulfed in smoke. And again... the wish for others to stop smoking is as much for them as it is for us... we don't want to see them die.

Also, you saying that an alcoholic father who beats their children is a little off... for all the people that drink, and by your own figures that is BY FAR the majority of people, only a small, small percentage do that... compared to those that smoke, pretty much all will die a premature death, thereby robbing their children of a father earlier than need be.

You will never convince me that drinking s worse or even on the same level as smoking, never.

Alcohol wasn't designed for anything, it was discovered because it was recreational. Cigarettes weren't designed to be deadly, tobacco was discovered because it was recreational.
What are the positive benefits of alcohol besides recreation and a few vague and tenuous health benefits?

wiki
Also, studies indicate that the proportion of men with alcohol dependence is higher than the proportion of women, 7% and 2.5% respectively, although women are more vulnerable to long-term consequences of alcoholism. Around 90% of adults in United States consume alcohol, and more than 700,000 of them are treated daily for alcoholism.

[...]

Of the adult US population, at least 75% are drinkers; and about 6% of the total group are alcoholics. In groups which are almost 100% drinkers, the alcoholism rate is about 8%. Many reports state that about 73% of felonies are alcohol-related. One survey shows that in about 67% of child-beating cases, 41% of forcible rape cases, 80% of wife-battering, 72% of stabbings, and 83% of homicides, either the attacker or the victim or both had been drinking."



Cigarettes may kill people, but I doubt they hurt families as much as an alcoholic father can do. So lets ban alcohol, lets ban fast food, lets ban everything. Or just let people be responsible for themselves and make their own decisions.

>> ^spoco2:
Alcohol? Not designed to be addictive (some people are to it, but that's true of almost anything... you can find someone addicted to most anything these days), has positive benefits, and when drunk in moderation has little to no negative effect.

My heartfelt apologies for my unexpected absence for this fiiiine event. Two of the most noteworthy members of the site and choggie chooses instead, to do some short, hard, time in Harris County's fine holding facility-The Harvard Kennedy School's Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, explains that the fiiine facility's capacity of just over 9200 inmates has been well over 12K for the last 2 years and, "Something has got to be done!"

Yeah, well, I hope I helped the situation in my own, inimitable fashion (some of you almost got your wish of choggie's face being re-arranged by some slow, thick, supposedly hip motherfucking LATINO, who thought I was some racist....hint hint, all who have ever pulled that card on me, Blankfuck, others...)and wish I could share my intake photo with you all, and have that shit onna t-shirt as well, to give away to folks here when they win some contest I come up with in the near future, that no one will have to volunteer to take part in to receive, save some exchange they have with me in my profile or in public that initiates a formidable and incoherent response, rather than some bullshit, predictable, monkey reaction.


I hope I am not too late to take this fiiiine Slovak for a Roman hay-ride-May I make it short, since every foray into getting to know a bit more about the cat has initiated some invitation on Facebook to fight Mafiosi or some picture of his favorite pastime, swimming nekkid in some chilly pond with his other buddies without a lady...like you could find one in the bottom end of the EEC totem, or want one with a mustache with her momma standing next to her to get a glimpse of her prize after 30!

Anyhow, looks like the others here did full justice, keep up the good work ya pasty fucker, stay indoors, try to remain in the functional camp of clear grain drinkers, and have a fiiiine life...yer in a prison with old growth forests and marmots.

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^ipfreely:
Well, instead of feeling sorry for these prisoners. Lets find out about these "Forced Labor Camp"
Has anyone actually spoken to these prisoners and gotten their views about this? No? Then lets not sit here and feeling sorry for them.
Forced labor? more like "Here are some job skills you can learn, maybe kill 8 hours of your life that you are going to lose anyway. Make the best of it instead of being forced to sit in your jail cell or walking around in a yard."
Or maybe "Hey, want to help America? Produce some much needed equipment for American soldiers. Make yourself feel good about yourself."
I'm pretty sure they are treated much better than some third world sweatshop child laborer.
Lets not lose any sympathy for the prisoners. Save them for the kids who have really no choice in real world.

I wonder why this comment recieved 3 downvotes. Honestly think whilst you read my post, don't simply react and go "SLAVERY BAAAAAD".
We are, after all, talking about people who we take out of society and lock in a cage. If we lock a human in a cage and deny them their freedom if not their life, why are we suddenly so indignant when we are getting work out of them? Is the work bit so bad compared to the cage bit?
Imprisoning someone, locking them in a cage, taking away their life and freedom - YAYYY, GOOD!
Forcing someone to work in reasonable conditions with shitty pay - NOOOO, TERRIBLE!
Just food for thought, guys. Obviously we need prisons to stop people hurting others, but after i stopped for a minute and thought about it, it just made me wonder:
a) why we all feel so indignant about the 'slavery' over the 'bondage'
b) why we lock people up for carrying or using drugs - surely we should lock them up IF we catch them in the act of stealing/harming others to feed their drug habit or tossing away dangerous needles/chemicals unsafely, but other than this, why do we need to lock these people in a cage? They only hurt themselves.
...well, ok they may 'hurt' their relatives too, but so do smokers, drinkers, gamblers and over-eaters.


your argument would be pertinent and concise if we didnt consider a few facts:
1.the prison system is no longer about rehabilitation or punishment but much more to do with corporate business and politics.
2.labor camps would not be an issue if A.the labor was voluntary B.defense contractors and corporations didnt profit from this labor and C.they were actually being taught skills which could translate to a job with livable wages (there are a few prisons which offer this but they are a minority and have limited openings and availability).

one more point i would like to make concerning your argument.
you create a false premise by making it out to seem that others only have a problem with the forced labor issue but not with the actual incarceration.
this is patently false.nobody is saying that violent criminals,thieves or drug dealers should not be punished and removed from society.what we ARE saying is that non-violent offenders,petty thieves and pot smokers should not be spending years in a penitentiary and then,as an example, being forced to labor for the profit of a giant defense contractor,who reaps huge profits.

let me conclude with a few things to think about:
we find ourselves in a dilemma.on the one hand america is incarcerating more people than the rest of the world combined and the majority for non-violent offenses.
on the other hand we have created a HUGE prison industry which employs millions of people to keep it running.sometimes whole townships entire economy is based on a single federal prison.
so what do we do?
if we legalize weed and change it from a type A narcotic to a mush lesser class we would effectively diminish the prison population on a massive scale.this means lost revenue for corporate run prisons and means major unemployment which could devastate entire communities.
this is the dilemma and to me it is a moral one but there is no easy answer.

>> ^ipfreely:
Well, instead of feeling sorry for these prisoners. Lets find out about these "Forced Labor Camp"
Has anyone actually spoken to these prisoners and gotten their views about this? No? Then lets not sit here and feeling sorry for them.
Forced labor? more like "Here are some job skills you can learn, maybe kill 8 hours of your life that you are going to lose anyway. Make the best of it instead of being forced to sit in your jail cell or walking around in a yard."
Or maybe "Hey, want to help America? Produce some much needed equipment for American soldiers. Make yourself feel good about yourself."
I'm pretty sure they are treated much better than some third world sweatshop child laborer.
Lets not lose any sympathy for the prisoners. Save them for the kids who have really no choice in real world.


I wonder why this comment recieved 3 downvotes. Honestly think whilst you read my post, don't simply react and go "SLAVERY BAAAAAD".

We are, after all, talking about people who we take out of society and lock in a cage. If we lock a human in a cage and deny them their freedom if not their life, why are we suddenly so indignant when we are getting work out of them? Is the work bit so bad compared to the cage bit?

Imprisoning someone, locking them in a cage, taking away their life and freedom - YAYYY, GOOD!
Forcing someone to work in reasonable conditions with shitty pay - NOOOO, TERRIBLE!

Just food for thought, guys. Obviously we need prisons to stop people hurting others, but after i stopped for a minute and thought about it, it just made me wonder:
a) why we all feel so indignant about the 'slavery' over the 'bondage'
b) why we lock people up for carrying or using drugs - surely we should lock them up IF we catch them in the act of stealing/harming others to feed their drug habit or tossing away dangerous needles/chemicals unsafely, but other than this, why do we need to lock these people in a cage? They only hurt themselves.

...well, ok they may 'hurt' their relatives too, but so do smokers, drinkers, gamblers and over-eaters.

>> ^arvana:
I can't believe nobody has mentioned Homo Milk yet -- that is far more WTF to me than bag milk. And yes, there is Homo Bag Milk...


I don't know why you'd say that, homo is shorted for homogenized(aka the shit tastes like water). Most places just don't call it that. Personally I'm a 3-4% mf drinker that likes non-homogenized milk, but I grew up on a farm. In Ontario, where we have more cows than people.

What I can buy at my local grocer, 3L containers don't exist either. 1L to 4L jugs. Bags 1-4L, homo/non. Cartons 1-4L, can't buy actual whipping cream so I have to make my own. 0.25-0.5L speciality types for cooking. And I live in a city with a population under 50,000. What I would like to buy at the store is milk in glass containers. Over in Kitchener/Waterloo and a few other places, theres a couple of companies that still do daily milk delivery in glass containers. I have to say, nothing quite like getting it every day in your milk box. And I have one of those too!