You misunderstand the motivation for the language of stereotype used to describe the general dynamics of alcohol in Great Britain, i.e., a pub at every intersection-Hey man, alcohols' the last legal drug here in the states as well for the same reason: Governments and international criminals (same same, but different, as they say in Thailand) control the drug trade around the world. They limit which drugs may be manufactured or sold. They make incredible amounts of money doing so.

Governments and international criminals also corner the market on guns and artillery and ammunition and do their best to control the distribution and manufacture to insure one thing: Control and centralization of power.

We're not suggesting Brits are more prone to drunkenness and brawling than the same sort of tits in the U.S. I am simply suggesting sane remedies that do not involve baby-out-with-bathwater solutions to some seriously flawed fundamentals: societal and cultural evolution should be determined by sober consensus without emotion instead of this bullshit, "But what about the children?!" line of reasoning promulgated by criminals in power...A line that is trumpeted by so-called representatives and used as a tool (kind of like a gun is a tool) along with the complicit and effective tool of propaganda called market television, or major media, or whatever label for abject disinformation and agenda-pumping that benefits a few that some people who see owning guns as horrifying, have bought into.

The way to keep your children safe form psychopaths is to reinvent society and gradually change culture in a direction that heals the planet instead of raping it. Less fucking insane parents mean less fucking insane kids. Fuck licensing firearms, how about licensing parents before they plop out another?

How do you cure a country like North Korea, whose people for a few generations have been systematically trained in totalitarian shit-think?? It's a job no one wants to think about. As long as planetary ass-rape is the direction we are headed, guns guns guns my easily-insulted brother, and less shit-think. I'm not a fucking idiot, but my government is being run into the ground by cunts and assholes and douchebags who have most of the control over most of the guns and drugs! See how simple it is??

Guns violence by a FEW + International media coverage with a view to convincing people that guns (OF ANY KIND OR CAPACITY) are the problem = what should be an insult to your intelligence at the very least, and a goddamn warning shot across the bow that World Police State is what the cunts really want for humanity.

Gun control happens shortly after a gun is manufactured, unless you want to accidentally hurt yourself or another utilizing another kind of control. Self-Control maybe??

The universe 6,000 years old? Uh, no.

Those of you who think this is the case - you fail the course and are assigned remedial education - make it count this time.

One of the thousands of TV shows I have never seen more than 4 minutes of....Doesn't it suck now that Whackenfreak is gone??

TYT: Remedial Think tank for future network talking heads.

>> ^Sniper007:

Two 30 minute test drives would definitively demonstrate the case either way. One trip without the fan operating. One trip with the fan operating. Which method leaves the batteries with more juice (or goes farther before dying, etc).
It's so remedial a solution, you have to believe he's done it.


It's not as easy as that. Measuring how 'full' a battery is has never been managed to a sufficiently accurate level to compare. Better would be to equip the car with several volt-meters and ammeters, recording the input and output of electricity.

Two 30 minute test drives would definitively demonstrate the case either way. One trip without the fan operating. One trip with the fan operating. Which method leaves the batteries with more juice (or goes farther before dying, etc).

It's so remedial a solution, you have to believe he's done it.

That is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

Don't people know you can't get energy from nowhere? The fan produces friction, that friction creates electricity, but it also slows the car down, the amount produced will never surpass the amount of energy spent pushing the car forward. Additionally there is inevitable loss in the generator, wiring and batteries.

It is impossible to build a wind turbine generator on a car that increases efficiency through wind generated by the vehicle's own travel.

Everyone involved in the production of that bit needs remedial physics classes.

>> ^scannex:

So your counter to the point of it being a behavior, is that it is term applied as the result of a series of behaviors which is a combination of over-eating and lack of exercise?
You must be kidding.
And sorry I have to put words in your mouth above, because aside from divine intervention I am not sure what mysterious factors cause one to be obese unless you are referring to genetic disorders/thyroid problems. Have fun finding a source on what % of obese Americans that covers.
It is behavioral, and its remedy is behavioral. I certainly will not say its an EASY behavior to modify (see previous arguments on leptin/dopamine), but you need to deal with it.
Also regarding what is impressionable you are simply incorrect. If you believe a child with two overweight parents that is the result of those parents having an idle lifestyle and providing garbage food for their kids isnt impactful youre dead wrong.
But here you go, some backup for that concept. From the AACAP
No one is advocating mocking is the right thing to do. And if you think this guys letter came from a place of hate or mockery I suggest you reread it. There really is no indication of that to me. It comes from a place of concern, even if that is misguided. You want to crucify this guy for trying to (perhaps poorly) encourage this woman to lose weight and that really isn't the right ethic either.

_{I realised why your comments annoyed me so much: they remind me of those MRA-holes who try to defend the missteps and/or bile of privileged/sexist people and then see them as being persecuted or "witchhunted". I can only hope I am wrong in seeing a connection.}

To the substance: you completely miss my point, go after strawmen, and then try to defend the unethical while falsely accusing the anchor and myself of persecuting a person (instead of criticising a... you guessed it, behaviour).

Yes, certain behaviour causes and/or aggravates obesity, but do you see her glamourously binge-eating junkfood while telling the news? Unlike a meth addict, there are plenty of overweight people who are overweight of no fault of their own. In fact, the example you give about obese parents having a higher chance of having obese children supports my point, not yours. Children of obese parents have a higher risk of being obese genetically, as well as environmentally, and that has nothing to do with imitating the parents' behaviour (but it's their fault, right? They should just exercise and not eat what their parents feed them, right?). Of course the parents who feed their children junkfood are responsible for their child's obesity, but what does that have to do with an overweight woman being on TV? Not to mention that even that can be more complex, since there are socio-economic factors, what with the US's terrible education system and the fact that its cheapest high-calorie food (i.e. what poor/hungry people will buy) is 98% corn-syrup (yes, I made that stat up, but the point remains). Finally, obesity can be a side-product of mental health issues / eating disorders (but then maybe you're the kind of ignorant douche who'd tell people with depression to just stop wallowing in self-pity and be happy; I hope not).

You go on in your second comment to, on your own admission, redefine what a behaviour is so it can suit your argument. Say the following phrase, out loud if need be, to realise how ridiculous your argument is:

"The woman on the TV is behaving/being overweight/fat/obese". See what I mean?

Finally, you accuse her of "wanting to crucify the guy". Did you even read my points 1) & 2) above (you know, the ones you ignored in your answer)? The "guy" is not being attacked (you'll note he has been left anonymous), what he is saying/doing is. His letter is being taken as an example to call out a certain kind of behaviour, one which is rampant in our society, and doing much harm. Whether his letter is a well-intentioned yet ignorant expression of misplaced concern (at best, and highly unlikely) or a surreptitious piece of condescending shaming (much more likely*) is irrelevant. It's anti-bullying month, and she's saying "people, don't do this, and here's why".

Your more recent comment is a perfect example of why what she's doing is of utmost importance:

the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.

If what he said was not reprehensible, who cares if it's made public (note once again that no names are named)? Shaming people or projecting one's narrowmindedness on them is all fine, but shhh, don't shed light on it! It's just a private message on the internet, it does no harm! (because we all know that there is no bullying, shaming, sexism, etc. on the internet. Nuh-uh)

When only one side of an exchange says "shhh, don't tell anyone about this, it's private" you usually have a bad situation; and the fact that you would defend the letter-writer and his "right" to not have his error called out does not suggest anything good about your own mindset, either.

In conclusion, it is all the more to this woman's (and her husband's/colleagues') credit that she/they took a "seemingly" (to the thickest out there) innocent letter to expose this form of abuse; a harmful remark need not be shocking or particularly vulgar to leave its mark, and it can even come from good intentions. Maybe some people watching will realise that the words they themselves speak/write are harmful, even if not intentionally, and will be more aware of it in future, while others might realise that the words they heard/read were not so innocent after all, and that they should stop beating themselves up for feeling guilt/shame/self-hate when in fact they've been being worn down by ignorant and/or hurtful attacks.

_{*It would be quite easy to analyse just how ignorant and condescending this letter is, not to mention borderline sexist (try imagining this person writing the same letter to Chris Christie, for example, replacing "girls" with "boys"). Analysis starter kit for you: "choice/habit/lifestyle", and the cornerstone phrase "Surely you don't..."}

>> ^hpqp:


3) Obesity is not like smoking. Yes, they are both health problems, but unlike smoking, being obese is not a behaviour. It can be caused/aggravated by certain behaviour, among many other factors. But while a behaviour can be inhibited while in front of others (e.g. not smoking in front of kids/a camera), you cannot "stop being obese". This brings out another distinction, namely that, while seeing people smoke can entice impressionable minds to do the same, seeing someone who is fat will not make one want to be fat as well. Seeing an overweight person on TV having a job or living a normal life might, on the other hand, give hope to people who are mocked and discriminated against for their weight issues, something which does not undermine in the slightest the struggle against obesity.
/rant


So your counter to the point of it being a behavior, is that it is term applied as the result of a series of behaviors which is a combination of over-eating and lack of exercise?
You must be kidding.

And sorry I have to put words in your mouth above, because aside from divine intervention I am not sure what mysterious factors cause one to be obese unless you are referring to genetic disorders/thyroid problems. Have fun finding a source on what % of obese Americans that covers.

It is behavioral, and its remedy is behavioral. I certainly will not say its an EASY behavior to modify (see previous arguments on leptin/dopamine), but you need to deal with it.

Also regarding what is impressionable you are simply incorrect. If you believe a child with two overweight parents that is the result of those parents having an idle lifestyle and providing garbage food for their kids isnt impactful youre dead wrong.
But here you go, some backup for that concept. From the AACAP

No one is advocating mocking is the right thing to do. And if you think this guys letter came from a place of hate or mockery I suggest you reread it. There really is no indication of that to me. It comes from a place of concern, even if that is misguided. You want to crucify this guy for trying to (perhaps poorly) encourage this woman to lose weight and that really isn't the right ethic either.

Edgeman, eating causes the release dopamine among other things. The clinical depression is a result of doing less of something your brain likes doing. Fat cells themselves also upregulate chemicals that increase the desire to eat, perpetuating the problem.
You however are citing the Solution to a problem AS the problem. (the problem beaing: eating as a key necessary trigger of hapiness in the individual). The solution, getting your weight under control is not what needs to be avoided here.

Again, this parallels perfectly to smoking. People become irritable/depressed/despondent if they fail, if they try and quit that behavior too. However, we still encourage people to stop smoking.
It is important that they stop for their health, and it, in terms of those in the public eye is a meaningful thing to avoid as a rolemodel.

Again, they are not depressed by weightloss, they are depressed by failing to partake in the dangerous/excessive behavior that causes pleasure. This neuro/chemical imbalance is something we have remedies for. Thanks Pharma!

>> ^scannex:

The normalization of obesity is a problem. The letter while technically unkind was done in a calm and constructive manner.
This woman IS in the public eye, and she does have the capacity to change her appearance.
People in this thread have drawn all sorts of parallels that just do not work, such as homosexuality.
A proper parallel would be something that is negative to her health, negative to the health of those that choose to follow her example, and something that is remediable...
Her obesity, by overwhelming odds is likely to be a behavioral issue, not a medical issue.
Therefore a more proper parallel would be her smoking while in front of the camera. Its not healthy, it is difficult but possible to modify the behavior, and it sets a poor example.
Do we bully people every time we tell them not to smoke? This woman did not appreciate being eluded to as fat. End of story, this guy wrote her a letter. He didn't soapbox in front of her kids school.


If millions lose weight by exercise and eating right and a few are clinically depressed because of it, I think that speaks to a psychological/neurological issue.

Or, they just haven't found the right foods to eat. I'd go insane if I ate rice cakes everyday, but it's not my body's fault that I'm depressed.

The normalization of obesity is a problem. The letter while technically unkind was done in a calm and constructive manner.
This woman IS in the public eye, and she does have the capacity to change her appearance.

People in this thread have drawn all sorts of parallels that just do not work, such as homosexuality.
A proper parallel would be something that is negative to her health, negative to the health of those that choose to follow her example, and something that is remediable...
Her obesity, by overwhelming odds is likely to be a behavioral issue, not a medical issue.

Therefore a more proper parallel would be her smoking while in front of the camera. Its not healthy, it is difficult but possible to modify the behavior, and it sets a poor example.
Do we bully people every time we tell them not to smoke? This woman did not appreciate being eluded to as fat. End of story, this guy wrote her a letter. He didn't soapbox in front of her kids school.

I disagree

Religion has plenty to teach us. It appropriately mirrors the evolution of the consciousness...the development of species-wide psychological tendencies throughout the history of humanity.

In order to understand where we are now, we need to understand where we've been, and why.

What religion teaches us is exactly where we are in the development of the consciousness -- and in short, we're idiots, a mere 10,000 years into cognition. We're evolutionary infants. Much, much dumber than we like to think we are.

Dawkin's would probably agree that he's dickish when it comes to religion. No qualms with that: religion is quite deserving of reactionary spite.

However where Dawkin's plays the fool is in being just as arrogant in his steadfastness that there is no "God". Just as arrogant as any relig-idiot with his iron belief system.

Where he could remedy the situation is to allow for a different concept of "God" - one not based on the idea that God is a being, like you and I. This primitive conceptualization is retarded on the surface, and self-serving at best.

To many, "evolution" is GOD - a beautiful process of life and continuing intellectual complexity that is potentially infinite.

This concept of God is inclusive, not exclusive and divisive.

uhhhh.....he's flat n his harp playin's remedial

Yeah, but the instant you start talk of repealing or restricting the right to own weapons, you put forth an image that you want them unarmed for your own gain.


Oops, meant to reply in the video. Oh well.
In reply to this comment by VoodooV:
>> ^kymbos:

If I was wandering down the street and happened upon a man or two walking with those fucking guns I would shit my pants! Are you serious? The idea that this is ok to do is fucking perverted. Insane.


I'd be ok with armed open carry civilians..if crime really was that rampant. But it's not! We're just not fighting for our lives on a daily basis here. We have a gov't that allows for peaceful change and we vote for a president every four years. These people who casually throw around the idea of "2nd amendment remedies" just haven't really experienced a truly oppressive gov't Oh crap, the price of a latte went up. Time to lock and load fellas!! First world problems.

If I'm just walking along and I see these kids openly carrying, How am I supposed to know that they're going to protect me if some armed robber magically jumps out from the bushes? How do I know these kids aren't the robbers themselves? I'm sorry, we don't live in a world where we can easily identify our protectors with their shining auras and perfect teeth and the bad guys can be identified with their black top hat and their furled mustache.

I'm ok with an armed citizenry. Just not to this degree. It just shows how insecure and paranoid we are.

I just feel the 2nd amendment serves more of a symbolic function than an actual practical one. All it really says is that you have a duty to do something if your gov't truly becomes oppressive. By who's judgement? Again, we have people throwing around the idea of "2nd amendment remedies" whenever a vote doesn't go their way. That's not oppressive gov't people. Come back to me when we actually can't vote anymore. Any successful revolt is going to need large popular support. If you don't have that, then maybe your revolt wasn't meant to succeed.

Here's the thing though, when has the lack of a 2nd amendment ever stopped anyone from overthrowing their gov't if enough people thought it was oppressive throughout history? if an oppressive gov't revokes your right to firearms. Do you just go home and twiddle your thumbs? No, you revolt anyway. Oppressive gov'ts don't just sit around and wait to be overthrown. If they make you an outlaw for having a gun and revolting...so what? being labeled an outlaw never stopped a successful revolt. If they take away your guns...you steal them back. To me it just doesn't seem to make a difference if we have a 2nd amendment or not. A modern military is not going to be deterred by dad's old shotgun. so even if you were allowed only home defense weapons and you needed to revolt. The first thing you do is that you steal some military weapons and/or you find sympathetic members of the military to side with you. if the gov't really has gotten that bad, you'll find entire outfits willing to defect I'd be willing to bet. You're going to need military training for your revolt in any case. 2nd amendment just tells you that you aught to revolt if gov't gets bad. Doesn't say anything about whether or not revolt would be easy. 2nd Amendment or no, ANY revolt is going to be massively bloody.

So hey..maybe we should put down the guns and solve our problems like adults in the 21st century. No one wants a revolution on their hands.

>> ^kymbos:

If I was wandering down the street and happened upon a man or two walking with those fucking guns I would shit my pants! Are you serious? The idea that this is ok to do is fucking perverted. Insane.


I'd be ok with armed open carry civilians..if crime really was that rampant. But it's not! We're just not fighting for our lives on a daily basis here. We have a gov't that allows for peaceful change and we vote for a president every four years. These people who casually throw around the idea of "2nd amendment remedies" just haven't really experienced a truly oppressive gov't Oh crap, the price of a latte went up. Time to lock and load fellas!! First world problems.

If I'm just walking along and I see these kids openly carrying, How am I supposed to know that they're going to protect me if some armed robber magically jumps out from the bushes? How do I know these kids aren't the robbers themselves? I'm sorry, we don't live in a world where we can easily identify our protectors with their shining auras and perfect teeth and the bad guys can be identified with their black top hat and their furled mustache.

I'm ok with an armed citizenry. Just not to this degree. It just shows how insecure and paranoid we are.

I just feel the 2nd amendment serves more of a symbolic function than an actual practical one. All it really says is that you have a duty to do something if your gov't truly becomes oppressive. By who's judgement? Again, we have people throwing around the idea of "2nd amendment remedies" whenever a vote doesn't go their way. That's not oppressive gov't people. Come back to me when we actually can't vote anymore. Any successful revolt is going to need large popular support. If you don't have that, then maybe your revolt wasn't meant to succeed.

Here's the thing though, when has the lack of a 2nd amendment ever stopped anyone from overthrowing their gov't if enough people thought it was oppressive throughout history? if an oppressive gov't revokes your right to firearms. Do you just go home and twiddle your thumbs? No, you revolt anyway. Oppressive gov'ts don't just sit around and wait to be overthrown. If they make you an outlaw for having a gun and revolting...so what? being labeled an outlaw never stopped a successful revolt. If they take away your guns...you steal them back. To me it just doesn't seem to make a difference if we have a 2nd amendment or not. A modern military is not going to be deterred by dad's old shotgun. so even if you were allowed only home defense weapons and you needed to revolt. The first thing you do is that you steal some military weapons and/or you find sympathetic members of the military to side with you. if the gov't really has gotten that bad, you'll find entire outfits willing to defect I'd be willing to bet. You're going to need military training for your revolt in any case. 2nd amendment just tells you that you aught to revolt if gov't gets bad. Doesn't say anything about whether or not revolt would be easy. 2nd Amendment or no, ANY revolt is going to be massively bloody.

So hey..maybe we should put down the guns and solve our problems like adults in the 21st century. No one wants a revolution on their hands.