My race, whatever that might be, doesn't throw people into prison for failure to obscure arbitrarily-chosen areas of their body from sacred mountains. Sounds like a pretty good race to me.

How did you become such a cliche that you'll defend any act of fascism in the name of cultural sensitivity, and cry racism at anyone who prefers freedom to religious domination?

She keeps asking how I would feel, as a white person... Quite honestly, I wouldn't give a flying fuck, because I'm not part of the "sensitive precious flower"/P.C. Police club. Dressing up as a particular group or race or nationality is only seen as offensive in countries such as the US (and others of course) where this sense of professional-victimhood/offended is becoming way too common.

Stop projecting malfeasance onto the actions of others.

Also... gentrification is a socio-economic problem, not a racial one. Poor white families are also affected by it. The emphasis is on POOR, not white or black or whatever.

Very interesting...

I'm one of those people who is highly sensitive to perfumes / scents, which is sometimes called "multiple chemical sensitivity". I know that it isn't technically an "allergy", but other than that I honestly have no idea whether this whole thing is psychosomatic (all in my head), "real" but with a lot of additional input from mental/emotional states, completely real and tied in some way to the smells themselves, or completely real and tied in some way to the actual "chemicals" (in a chemistry sense) in the air. All I know is that there are a LOT of triggers for me where I can get one small whiff of something and know that I'm going to get a pounding headache.

Aggravation with that has often caused me to wonder if it would be possible to surgically or pharmacologically destroy or impair my olfaction senses, like what happened to the woman in the video, and cure the headache triggers. If the smells themselves are the triggers, it seems like that could work. If it is largely or completely psychosomatic, it could still work because I wouldn't know that I was being exposed to the smell triggers; one thing that I've considered is that I also get very angry if I'm in a private place like my home or otherwise trying to avoid triggers and somebody wanders in wearing some nasty shit and compromises the integrity of my safe zone. In public I know that I can't control what other people wear so I just try to get away very quickly from trigger smells, but in my own home I get ultra pissed if somebody comes in and stinks it up. I have wondered if that anger exacerbates or maybe even in some cases is the actual primary source of the headache symptoms. But anyway, even if that was the case, being able to cap or cut off my sense of smell would solve the problem.

The only way that the problem could persist AFTER surgically eliminating my sense of smell would be if the reaction is really to the chemicals themselves in the air. And then, that would be worse because I wouldn't have the warning system of smell telling me to get the hell away from perfume counters, ladies wearing the stuff, dudebros wearing shit like Axe, etc.

All in all, I don't actually think it would be worth the downsides. BUT, I must say I've really wondered about it when I've got a pounding headache after simply walking by somebody wearing perfume in line at a grocery store or whatever...

I wouldn't think too much of it. ant is just very religious and sensitive when it comes to his god.

He's down-voted me for saying much less.

I said they can feel more when dousing. The racoon is simply examining the items.

"Their paws contain highly developed nerves, and the water actually makes their paws more sensitive.

"Dabbling behavior in water is a fixed motor pattern in raccoons. Since only captive raccoons exhibit food-dousing behavior, scientists believe that washing food is simply a substitute for normal dabbling behavior, which has no other outlet in captivity,"

http://www.sungazette.com/page/content.detail/id/564573.html


Feeling things underwater is what they do. Why do you imagine the owners have supplied the racoon with a water bowl full of toys? It is to occupy its attention.

@ChaosEngine

Everything @newtboy said. I think you're exaggerating just a tad. You're not going to build a PC that runs newly released games at 1080p at 60fps and also includes a blu-ray drive , 500 GB HD, and wireless motion sensitive controller for under $400 US (current price of PS4 on US Amazon). Plus, you're almost certainly going to have to buy a 1080p monitor (since most people don't do their computing on their TV or keep their tower case in the living room), which will set you back $200 minimum even for a cheap one that's likely to ghost.

As far as games go, nearly EVERY major release will be on all platforms and in fact will likely come out on console first (GTA V). Sure, some kickstarter stuff like Pillars of Eternity won't be available but it works both ways--you won't get some awesome console exclusives on the PC (Mario Kart, Little Big Planet, etc.) either.

Plus as newtboy mentioned, you can rent and sell console games. Yeah, PC games drop to much lower price points as they get older (I usually pick up all the good stuff I missed at $3-5 during Steam sales) but reselling isn't an option for most stuff (yet). You can mod most PC games, though, so that's a plus for them.

Look, I play 90% of my games on my gaming PC. That's because I have the time and money to do so. I don't understand the attitude of looking down on people who don't have those luxuries or who don't want to spend the prerequisite time required pouring over tech forums, price comparing at hardware vendors websites like Newegg, and downloading proper drivers just to build a gaming PC on the cheap when they can just go to a store down the road and pick up something comparable with virtually no effort.

Or maybe to give a better and more accurate view on round-up toxicity, this summary from a scientific journal article prepared by The Department of Pathology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, link to full article follows:

Results from several investigations establish that
the acute toxicity and irritation potential of Roundup
herbicide in humans is low. Specifically, results from
controlled studies with Roundup showed that skin irritation
was similar to that of a baby shampoo and
lower than that observed with a dishwashing detergent
and an all-purpose cleaner; no dermal sensitization,
photoirritation, or photosensitization reactions were
148 WILLIAMS, KROES, AND MUNRO
observed. Furthermore, the incidence of occupationalrelated
cases involving Roundup is low given the widespread
use of the product. Data from these cases indicated
some potential for eye and skin irritation with
the concentrated product, but exposure to dilute spray
solutions rarely resulted in any significant adverse
effect. Most importantly, no lasting dermal or ocular
effects were noted, and significant systemic effects attributable
to contact with Roundup did not occur. Studies
of Roundup ingestion showed that death and other
serious effects occurred only when large amounts were
intentionally ingested for the purpose of committing
suicide. These data confirmed that the acute oral toxicity
in humans is low and consistent with that predicted
by the results of laboratory studies in animals.


http://www.ask-force.org/web/HerbizideTol/Williams-Safety-Evaluation-Risk-Assessment-RR-2000.pdf

As an interesting parallel; my dog started losing his hair. I went online to figure out the cause and learned a lot of good information. Food sensitivity causes canine hair loss, corn based diets are bad for dogs, large inexpensive name brands use suspect ingredients...there were tons of forum discussions available with information. Pages of talk with people's experience trying to correct the problem. Inevitably, they fed the dog such and such terribly expensive food and the problem went away...then the manufacturer must have changed the formula because it came back...tried new ultra expensive dog food which fixed the problem....

Everyone obviously loved their dogs and they were doing everything they could to fix it. Same story over and over, tons of money spent.

Until I noticed one random comment that was different; "seasonal pattern baldness". Nothing you can do, it's incurable and comes and goes with the seasons.

So all the anecdotal experience, one food fixed it then the brand changed and it came back...all of it was random chance as the problem naturally came and went. But when the answer was provided, you can't fix the problem, it was completely ignored.

I believe people reject that they can't control things in life. Isnt this what makes people reject science and turn to naturalism and religion? The idea that you can reshape the world, in your own mind, into something you can control.

Touchy subject. Can't really say or comment about the issue. But given that most incidents have a reactive counter-measures, there is also a pro-active method to ensuring that such sensitive photos aren't somehow leaked.

People take for granted the ability to store the photos that they've taken in the cloud. This is convenience that a lot of people like, myself included. However, by storing a digital photo onto the cloud, two things happen: the photo is there "forever" and the photo can be stolen, nearly irregardless of security.

As far as security, the first and only line of defense is the password. Unfortunately we live in a day and age where password won't work no matter what you use -- complex, generated, correcthorsebattery (or whatever it was), and what else there is. Given time, the password will be cracked and the account compromised. We, as human beings, prefer convenience and are willing to give up security in order to make it easier for us to remember the billions of accounts that we have laying around -- Twitter, Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat. Having that one-password-fits-all kind of system, the line of defense is very thin and can break easily.

The pro-active method for intimate photos is to simply not store them onto the cloud. Instead, back them up into cold storage. Put it onto a backup drive and unplug it when it's not in use. It'll be inconvenient for many. But in most cases, it'll make it very difficult for anyone to steal those photos that some treasure so much. Once the photos are backed up, delete them off the device.

So yeah, most people would say to not take the photo in the first place. Unfortunately for me, I'm one who would say that too. Dammit...

It's unfortunate for anyone whose intimate photos are stolen. I know these victims must remain vigilant and strong to fend off the morons who make stupid comments about it. But the mind can only take so much verbal abuse. The sad thing about it all is that it doesn't matter whose at fault or who is to blame. Everyone loses.

Sugar is sucrose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose combined and it is immediately separated in the body by the saliva in your mouth. Glucose is fine for your body, it is the energy storage system that metabolizes into glycogen in the liver. Fructose, on the other hand, is a toxin that is metabolized in the body similarly to alcohol, as ChaosEngine said. Essentially it is treated as a toxin and turned into numerous by-products which do things like: delay your leptin response (you feel full later, thus making you eat more), increase your high-density lipo-protein (increasing your cholesterol and storing fat in your liver), and decreasing your sensitivity to insulin (leading to type-2 diabetes).

As to what artician said, high-fructose corn syrup and sugar are treated exactly the same in the human body. In fact, here is a list of all of the things that companies call sugar to hide it when it is the exact same thing: brown sugar, caster sugar, fruit sugar, organic sugar (in fact sometimes they just put organic in front of any of these things to make it seem better for you but trust me, it isn't), evaporated cane juice, evaporated cane syrup, high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, glucose-fructose, brown sugar, honey, molasses, golden syrup, high glucose corn syrup, agave/agave nectar, corn sweetener, fruit juice solids, cane syrup solids, fruit juice concentrate, invert sugar, maltodextrin and even fruit juice.

All of the studies done in the last 15 years have shown that sugar is sugar and calories are not calories. All of the kinds of sugar that have quantities of fructose are bad for you, except when they have fiber. This is why fruit is still good for you while fruit juice is the same thing as soda.

The only things that you do not have to avoid as a sugar are these: brown rice syrup, dextrose and glucose. All of these things are completely glucose, no fructose whatsoever. Therefore, they are largely safe. However, large quantities of glucose can give you a large liver because of the stored glycogen.

Some links if you don't believe me:

Comparison: http://www.foods4betterhealth.com/what-evaporated-cane-juice-sugar-vs-evaporated-cane-juice-8645

Aspartame: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4127 ; http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-artificial-sweeteners-safe/

HFCS vs Sugar: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157

Dangers of Fructose: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-fructose-corn-syrup/

No. Aspartame is not bad for you. Sugar, however is absolutely bad for you. The purpose of this video is to show people how much aspartame is in Coke Zero vs the amount of sugar in Coke. Sugar, the number one cause of obesity, heart disease and other health issues, is far less sweet so you need a much larger amount to get the same level of sweetness as aspartame. The tiny amount of black stuff left over at the end of the Coke Zero pan is the aspartame. You need milligrams of aspartame compared to 30 grams of sugar.

All of the studies that have "shown" damaging effects of aspartame have given RATS not milligrams of aspartame, but GRAMS. This would be equivalent to a human being shoveling a pile of aspartame powder into their mouth, something that no one could even do because it would be too sweet to ingest.

Aspartame is a very simple chemical that when it enters the human body breaks down into three things, phenylalanine, methanol and aspartic acid. Once again, the amounts that these things break down into is smaller than you would get from eating comparable "natural products." You would get more methanol eating a few grapes or an apple. Aspartic acid is an amino acid that is good for you and you would once again find more of it in an oyster than in Coke Zero. And finally phenylalanine is the only thing that is of any danger to anyone. And even then, it is only dangerous to those who have phenylketonuria, a sensitivity to phenyl-groups that you would know if you have. Otherwise it is a hormone that only affects infants and is present in breast milk, one of the healthiest substances on earth for a human.

Sure, aspartame is one of the most complained about items by consumers at the FDA. But does that mean the science is wrong? No. It simply means that someone gets a headache and they blame it on the diet soda they just drank instead of the fact that they are dehydrated. Or someone has a dizzy spell because they got up too fast and they blame it on the diet soda they just drank. Aspartame has been investigated by every Federal Consumer Product group around the world and none of them have found a sufficient link to any health danger in order to take it off of the shelves. If you believe that this is a conspiracy, you are wrong. The bigger conspiracy is the rampant disregard for the danger of sugar in processed foods.

If you are curious about the dangers of sugar that are backed by solid nutritional and molecular biology, you should watch "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" on Youtube, or the movie Fed Up.

Some people have sensitivity to Aspartame. I used to get headaches when I was younger from drinking Diet Coke, and it was a co-worker that suggested Aspartame could be the cause. I stopped drinking Diet Coke and the frequent headaches went away.

I drink Coke Zero now, but not as much as I used to, and it doesn't bother me. Coke is still the only thing I will drink rum with.

Almost downvoted for making me sensitive people tear up on Christmas Eve.

My problem with angry people who act like this is that im always in fear that this type of behavior may move into crazy territory at any time. Either way people who act "angry" in this way freak me out and make me nervous and or scared. You just never know what might come next. I don't want to have to deal with that kind of fear/anxiety/stress in my life. Then again i am hyper sensitive to seeing this behavior as i would never allow anyone in my life that has these kind of crazy outbursts in for instance a like situation. I see this is as a huge warning sign to stay away from a person who is capable of acting out like this.

think im making this personal and getting off tract.

Hey. I'm a fat person. I get it. Probably why I am so sensitive when I see mostly women get incredibly ugly things said about them.

You don't have to like it. Just me, doing my thing.

Scold me to your heart's content. It's all good, @Lann.