>> ^NobleOne:
I got to stop drinking and posting but so i guess the question then becomes if it is nothing more then chemicals or relationship based solely on survival then in 50 yrs we would have no need for Love since A) we would be plugged into the Matrix and B) robots will be doing all are surviving for us. Though i have a hard time believing either of these concepts with people belief in Love. Without it then life really has no meaning. Life is then baseless and utterly pointless. So then are you (gwiz&rotten) saying technology will replace Love?
oh and gwiz yeah i know how to use wikipedia thanks!

Um...it's not a conscious decision to have chemicals perform for us...

It'd take thousands to millions of years to get rid of that function. Why do manatees have toenails? It's obviously not necessary for them any longer...however there's no need for them to disappear totally. Unless an individual is born without the "love" function and he or she is able to propagate more fruitfully because of the lack of that function, it's not guaranteed we'll ever lose it. Plus it's just one small part of a complex system.

I got to stop drinking and posting but so i guess the question then becomes if it is nothing more then chemicals or relationship based solely on survival then in 50 yrs we would have no need for Love since A) we would be plugged into the Matrix and B) robots will be doing all are surviving for us. Though i have a hard time believing either of these concepts with people belief in Love. Without it then life really has no meaning. Life is then baseless and utterly pointless. So then are you (gwiz&rotten) saying technology will replace Love?

oh and gwiz yeah i know how to use wikipedia thanks!

Average pounds per year of Sugar Consumption
1700: 4 lbs
1800: 18 lbs
1900: 90 lbs
2000: 145 lbs
2009: 156 lbs

Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Dementia, etc. were all virtually nonexistent several hundred years ago. Life expectancy figures you've likely heard where people only lived to be 35, etc. are complete B.S. High infant mortality rates, accidents, and infectious disease dramatically skew the life expectancy downward. Those subsets of the population not affected by these outside factors lived to be in excess of 80-100 years old without any incidence of cancer, heart disease, diabetes - the so called "diseases of civilization." Here is a table of ages of deaths for a population of Inuit from the Moravian Church in Labrador
and the Russian Church in Alaska, 1822-1836:

Aleuts, Unalaska district
Died ages 1-4 -- 92
Died ages 4-7 -- 17
Died ages 7-15 -- 41
Died ages 15-25 -- 41
Died ages 25-45 -- 103
Died ages 45-55 -- 66
Died ages 55-60 -- 29
Died ages 60-65 -- 22
Died ages 65-70 -- 24
Died ages 70-75 -- 23
Died ages 75-80 -- 11
Died ages 80-90 -- 20
Died ages 90-100 -- 2

People who lived in the jesus damn Artic 200 years ago, had zero access to fruits or vegetables and subsisted on a diet of 100% meat (fish, seals, whales, etc.) for their entire lives. 25% of them lived to be over 60 years old, with some living past 90...in a freaking igloo!

In one study of terminally ill patients, patients who were so close to dying that any treatment (including no treatment) was deemed ethical, an intervention method consisting of the complete removal sugar from their diets (think about what most hospital diets consist of for a second) was introduced. Those patients living past the first week (most were so far gone, they died before the study could even start) had their tumors either regress enough to be surgically treated, or experienced full remission. Patients who were previously given less than a week to live were now cancer-free simply by removing sugar from their diets.

Cancer cells have been shown in many studies ( including this one http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=296896) to have a disproportionally higher number of insulin receptor cells. Cancerous cells are "successful" mutations from an evolutionary perspective in that they lead to massive cell propagation. However, most cancerous cells have no method of internal cell metabolism, and must subsist and grow almost exclusively on energy supplied by blood glucose (hence the elevated receptor count). Essentially, cancerous cells are "parasites." By removing all sources of glucose from the body, and entering a state of ketosis, where acetone bodys supply energy to the cells as opposed to glucose, the cancer cells starve; dying or slowing growth to the point where the body's immune system can sucessfully remove them.

Long story short, you wanna live to be 100, stop drinking so much f*ing soda.

Stop drinking the kool-aid...

In reply to this comment by Ornthoron:
Just so you know: It wasn't primarily your koolaid comment that caused me to write up a talk post; I've been annoyed by such comments for a long time. Your comment was among the better I've seen of the kind, and it just so happened that it was the one that tipped me over the line.

Now excuse me while I go collect this year's meager tax return from the ridiculously high income tax that I've been indoctrinated to enjoy paying in my socialist utopia of a welfare state.

Ok, putting that ad on TV is way lower on my moral scale than cutting open a fish.

Same goes for seal hunting and so many other things. The only thing that makes people against seal hunting is a) they're cute and b) blood on the snow is much more photogenic than blood in an abattoir.

PETA was even trying to get kids to stop drinking milk at one time, what a bunch of losers. They should all be shot alongside Jenny Mccarthy and those anti inoculation nutjobs.

>> ^blankfist:
Stop drinking the partisan koolaid, mr. sensitive. Where's your sense of humor?

I think it has been unequivocally demonstrated that I have none whatsoever.


>> ^Crake:
How about in Mac vs PC discussions?

In that setting it is of course completely justified.

Stop drinking the partisan koolaid, mr. sensitive. Where's your sense of humor?

I really don't enjoy being around kids or babies, and I don't see anything wrong with it. Babies just gross me the fuck out. They make me physically uncomfortable, like the guy in the sketch. I feel like it's Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Almost every friend I've got has now settled down with a nagging girl, who has shit out an annoying little turd, that has become the centre of their existence. It's like if I took a dump and carried it around for a couple years expecting everyone to fawn over it. Every single guy comes to me and says how great it is, how the baby's given their life some kind of meaning... but they're different, like they've been taken into a dark room for the introductory Dianetics film. To a man, they are buying into the Hallmark bullshit that is being shoved down all our throats. Maybe I would like kids more if I could be a father in the fifties when a man was entitled to ignore kids, and allowed to discipline them as he saw fit. Nobody will admit it fucking sucks. Nobody will admit it was like Alien when an eight pound hairball squeezed out of his wife's vagina and asked for the car keys. God, the horror. The worst part is when you have to stand there watching some little punk run up and down the hall, or listen to them repeat the same inane phrase over and over while you're trying to retain your sanity by poking yourself in the balls with a salad fork under the table. Then you gotta act like the little bugger's antics are the most precious thing you've ever seen. Oh puke! I'd rather the guy's wife show me the last interesting dump she took, for all I care!

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid, motherfuckers!

/Merry, Merry Christmas!

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
That'll shut her up. Phew.

HAHAHA!

When will I stop drinking and driving? Here's a better question, why am I drunk in the middle of the day? Now pour me a drink from that thermos, light me up a cigarette and shut the fuck up.

these were printed on german matchbooks at the end of WW2

"Take the powder from a rifle cartridge and dissolve it in your daily cup of coffee. do this each day until you begin to feel and look ill. stop eating so that you will appear emaciated. report to morning sick-call and say you are too sick to fight. the doctor will make a preliminary diagnosis and send you to the hospital. you will return to good health in a week to ten days after you stop drinking the concoction. this will make you sick, but it's better than being dead."

"Rub black pepper in your eyes until they swell. continue the action until your eyes are too swollen to see. report to morning sick-call and explain that you can't see. your sight will return; the pain and discomfort is better than the certain death that awaits you in combat."

the matchbooks were given to the germans by the british, who were trying to demoralize the germans into thinking not fighting was better than fighting. seem like some pretty solid ideas to me.

oh wait, you signed up for this? nvm, go give em hell. come home safe.

^ That is twice in one week. I have to stop drinking Red Bulls while I sift. That's bullshit it's not the Red Bulls, i'm just stupid.

But I like being a drunk fag.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Stop drinking. Stop being a fag.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Bitch!?

Stop drinking. Stop being a fag.

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
Bitch!?

What a cunt.

The problem with smoking cessation programs aren't the 66% that don't quit. Clearly it works very well for those who WANT to quit.

The problem with drug rehab isn't that most people has relapses, it is very successful for those who WANT to stop using drugs.

There is no such thing as alcoholism, it is just that people don't WANT to stop drinking.

It's not that dieting doesn't work, it's that people don't WANT to stop eating.

See, if we only look at those people who really want to abstain from sex, clearly abstinence only education works GREAT! Sure, forget about statistics and public health concerns, and the futility of meaningless good-intentioned bible thumpers. We just need to find a way to change teenagers so they fit into some abstinence only program.

It's not the drug trial, it's the patients that were selected for the trial!

Bravo, douchebag!

^MaxWilder
Some people will place a high value on education, and allocate their resources accordingly, but far too many will either not value it at all, or be unable/unwilling to pay what is sure to be a much higher cost than parents currently pay in taxes. The current price per student in the US is somewhere around $10,000 per year, but the price per taxpayer is much less because the burden is spread. We do that because the education of the nation's youth benefits everybody (assuming we can repair the system so that our students actually begin to learn again).

If thats true, give me 20 kids right now. I will quit my job tomorrow and give them the best damn education any K-12 kids ever received. $10,000? thats just insane. That means my K-12 education was "worth" $130,000! Who, in the absence of force, would pay $10,000 a year for our current public education?


I am a single white male with no children. I have an average job and receive average pay. I cannot afford to purchase a house in the current market. Despite this, I will happily pay my share in taxes with the hope that it will increase the intelligence of the people I share this planet with. Who are you?
And just so we're clear, if milk went up to $8 per gallon, I'd stop drinking it. That's a lousy analogy.

If there was no public education, what would stop you from donating to charities which provide education to low-income families? Its nice you hold that ideal-but how can you justify forcing me to donate? Charities operate on the free market as well--if society derives value from a common education--then the individuals which make up that society will donate money, in proportion to this value, which establishes a common education.

You would stop drinking milk--but would you stop drinking? My guess is you'd drink something else which is more affordable. Same thing goes for education.