I think you are crazyholic.

At 10/5/09 11:14 PM, Elfer wrote: Pox, you know as well as I do why mandatory fat camp is a shit idea: Because you can't make people form habits that they don't like.

The point of fat camp is to make them like the good habits.

You can't FORCE people to build healthy habits

People don't choose to have bad habits and to be fat.
They were just never shown the good habits. They were never made to have any of them.

We need to do a better job of showing people the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, not just from a health perspective, but from a lifestyle perspective as well.

Yeah that's the point of said fat camps.
It's an education experience, not a concentration camp.

People will do what they want to do whether you like it or not.

That's clearly false as shown by the very existence of religion. It proves that habits cemented early on stay for life. Drugs is not the same at all for a lot of reasons I won't go into. Unless you really want me to. But it would be a waste of time.

Your solution takes the form of the classic legislative policy failure: It addresses the symptoms while completely ignoring the problem.

And what problem is that exactly?

At 10/5/09 10:24 PM, Proteas wrote:

You're talking about two weeks of hardcore exercise where 5 to 7 pounds of weight loss a week is NOTHING,

I never mentioned 2 weeks, the level of exercise or the expected per week amount of weight that would actually be demanded/ expected.

Straw man argument.
You keep doing it. Over and over and over. For years now.

Clever. My point still stands;

Wow, everyone take a picture of this as Proteas, having been shown 100% wrong on BMI ignores it and even turns it into an attempt by ME to sneakily advance my points.

just to fit in with what a number says about they're overall health, as apposed to what an actual doctor has to say about their overall health (which is what the BMI does not take into account, much less individual body mass).

A BMI wouldn't be sufficient to send a kid there. They'd need doctor approval.

... you starved yourself instead of exercising, and then went on a McDonald's binge afterward. And now you want to dictate a national health directive on weight loss.

You were wrong, I was right.
I win.

Which brings us back to a previous point that you won't acknowledge; how do you intend for kids to stick with this?

Because they might enjoy not being fat pieces of shit? Because they might like the prospect of living to be 50? Because other kids tease them? Because they can get a date? Because they'll feel better and have more energy? Because they'll be overall happier? Because they'll be afraid to go back next year and be embarrassed?

I said preventable deaths, pox. I don't know where you got preventable disease from. Clean your computer screen. :-)

Yeah, DEATHS FROM PREVENTABLE DISEASES ARRRR YOU ARE NUTS.

Actually, if your math skills didn't SUCK, it would be #1. :-)

Smoking is number 1.
And my math skills have nothing to do with it you nincompoop since I have no data on how many it would actually take from 1,2,3,4 and 6.

My point is that it DIDN'T mentally scar them and it was way way worse than forcing a kid to do situps.

.... to which I again say, "bullshit," because now you're back to arguing converse accident.

Yeah it fucked them up so badly that Quebec is one of the leading provinces in one of the leading countries on earth. WOW THAT REALLY FUCKED THOSE PEOPLE UP BUT GOOD.

At 10/5/09 08:59 PM, Proteas wrote:

Because that is what you risk by doing this, having someone who is otherwise sedentary and out of shape all of the sudden active and losing weight like crazy.

Can you please stop trying to disagree with me?
It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that you won't get the fattest kids you can on the running track on day one until their heart explodes. Why do you do this? You know this as well as I do.

Yes, it is. The graph I linked to clearly defines that. Look at it again.

http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/
Notice the "height" field?

5 foot 2, 142 = 26 bmi
5 foot 2, 137 = 25.1 bmi
0.9 difference for 5 pounds

6 foot 2, 142 = 18.2 bmi
6 foot 2, 137 = 17.6
0.6 different for 5 pounds.

If you knew what the formula for BMI was, you'd know this.
http://www.whathealth.com/bmi/formula.ht ml

And 5 pounds is nothing. In 7 weeks, you can easily get a kid to lose 20-40 pounds.

And you're medical qualification on the matter is what?

I've done it.
http://www.thepoxbox.com/what.php?id=liq uid
Without even moving. 14 pounds in 22 days.
Depending on the kid's age and weight, 3-4 pounds a week isn't even that unreasonable. Obvioulsy the younger and less fat they are, the slower they need / can lose weight.

What kind of mystical wonderland do you live in where all summer camps cost like 4000 a week?

Then why aren't you focused on people over the age of 45?

Because type 2 diabetes starts developing when you're young and then after 20 years of eating crap, it gets to a point where you need it treated or you die. Fat camp is a prevention tool.

If you're fat and in good health and shape, then the benefits of further weight loss are would be negligible, making your plan pointless.

Like I said, the VAST majority of fat people are not in shape.

I showed where 300,000 people die every year from Obesity, and then I showed how those deaths factored into the preventable deaths statistics, thereby nullifying your pseudo-scientific bullshit claims about Obesity being the #2 killer in this country because statistically.... it can't be.

What on earth are you even talking about anymore?
There's no "preventable disease" category on your list: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/lcod.htm

You've reached Cartman-levels of denial :O

Obesity being at 300k would put it number 2 on that list and if you subtract the obesity-related deaths from 1,2,3,4 and 6 ( so you don't count a death twice ), it would move up, taking a nice juicy chunk of of Heart Disease.

Again, BULLSHIT DOUBLE STANDARD. You hate religion and everything it stands for and you HATE what the Church did to your parents, and now you want to argue that some mental scarring is good for people?

My point is that it DIDN'T mentally scar them and it was way way worse than forcing a kid to do situps.
Hmmm, let's see, 10 push ups or eternity in hell? What's going to be worse for a kid's mental balance?

At 10/5/09 09:07 PM, Ericho wrote: There are some problems with it; you say it's going to be free but many people may not want to participate in something like this if it's free.

They wouldn't want to participate in it because it's free?
?
What.

What exactly would be the minimum weight needed to get in?

All depends on the kids. Frankly I think it wouldn't be too much. A 30 BMI is by far sufficient.
Obesity is a problem that snowballs over the years. You have to catch it early and get the kids on the right track as soon as you can. That kid with the belly might be funny now when he's 10 but when he dies of a heart attack at 50 and it takes 3 paramedics to load him on a stretcher, it won't be that funny.

At 10/5/09 06:57 PM, Proteas wrote:

So what makes you think they'll stick with the diet and excercise plan at all if they aren't happy to go?

Because then THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK NEXT YEAR?

Plus, do you realize how much excercise somebody is going to have to do in order to effect a 1.0 change in their BMI rating? It's 5 pounds for ever 1.0 rating.

BMI depends on your height. It's not 5 pounds per 1.0
And 5 pounds is nothing. In 7 weeks, you can easily get a kid to lose 20-40 pounds.
The point is to get the kid to have good habits so he keeps it up during the entire year with help from his parents.

In Canada, maybe, not in the United States.

What kind of mystical wonderland do you live in where all summer camps cost like 4000 a week?
???
Just google any rates
http://denver.about.com/od/education/a/s ummercamps.htm
You can easily find some for way way less. And these are profit-based camps. Mandatory fat camp would have government aid. It would be even cheaper.

You don't "contract" diabetes like AIDS, pox. And Type 1 diabetes

First off, no one's talking about type 1 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is the most common and develops with age. The worse your habits, the faster you get it.
http://bodyandhealth.canada.com/channel_
condition_info_details.asp?disease_id=21 4&channel_id=1055&relation_id=17519

Now kids are starting to get this because they're so overweight and out of shape. It's terrible.

So you can be fat and in shape? How does that play into your whole "you weigh x weight, you go to fat camp to not be a fatass anymore" line of logic?

If you work out a lot, you're gonna be in shape. But losing the weight will improve your health regardless. You'll just be EVEN HEALTHIER.
And fat people who are in shape are a very very tiny minority of people.

So call it what you want, but at the end of the day the number is still over 300k.

The statistics don't agree with you, and they are based... ON SCIENCE.

Yeah your stats. They said death from obesity-related causes are 300k+ people a year.

You prove yourself wrong and you somehow chart this up as a win on your side. You're nuts.

At 10/5/09 07:06 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

ONE question.... Who is going to pay the plastic surgery bills to remove the excess skin when the weight is lots?

Those are only in REALLY extreme cases and you'd pay for it. Though shit.

At 10/5/09 07:22 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

There was no mandate that you were forced to comply with.

It would have made things a LOT easier, faster and I'd probably be in better shape today too.
And not everyone is me. I'm the exception, not the norm.

[ Not to mention -- if it were me who had made the above argument that you just made then you'd be bitching about how my personal anecdotal evidence

I think it's fair to say that fat people don't like being fat.
In fact "unhappy" is almost in the dictionary next to "fatass" and "Cinnabon costumer".

and that makes a big difference doesn't it?

No, that's the point of this thread.
Kids HATE school too. Does anyone try to use that as an argument for why they shouldn't go to school anymore?
No. If you're going to force them to waste 5 days a week learning about shit they'll never use unless they're on Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader, I say: force them to at least learn something that matters all their lives.

Given their dispositions that may psychologically mess them up even more than they already might be.

Boo hoo. My parent's entire generation spent their childhood on school benches being terrorized with hellfire and getting hit on the knuckles with rulers, only to come home and get a good slap in the face from their parents if they ever fucked up. Enough of this "psychological scaring" victim mentality bullshit.

That part is obvious. I just think that forcing it upon kids a la "fat camps" is just a really bad way to get them involved in their own physical fitness.

So what's your alternative?

This is literally one of the most significant aspects of being involved in team sports.

Well yeah, but like I said before, team sports are not for fat kids. Fat kids are not picked on any teams, that's why they hate sports. Fat kids are not in shape to compete with the other kids.

And team sports that only last through high school and maybe college don't help you once you get a job and can't play football 2 hours a day like you used to. That kid wasn't playing sports to be in shape, he was playing to "make it big" and to win for his team. Those aren't the reasons you want kids to have for being active.

In your other thread you seemed rather incredulous towards the idea that being involved in team sports has any particular benefits.

I'm not arguing that team sports would give an edge to fat kids, I'm saying that they could finally play against/ with people of their own level. No one gives a shit if they lose weight on a bicycle all by themselves or playing on a hockey team. They're not in fat camp to learn how to be a teamplayer, they're there to lose weight.

At 10/5/09 05:19 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

LOL forcing kids into fat camp helps them be happy? Let me play the part of YOU for a second -- "Do you have any proof that forcing children to exercise will make them happy? Show me the evidence."

Well I've never been to a fat camp myself but having lost weight, I can tell you I was MUCH happier after it. It's a high that lasts a long time and a sense of pride and accomplishment.

And a well-known way to attain happiness for people is to achieve goals. When they compare things like "being rich and famous" with "attaining personal goals" you see that you're much happier with option 2. Reaching a weight loss/ muscle gain / level of fitness is very rewarding.

And it's also pretty established that being overweight increases your depression http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/eati ng_for_life/52163 at all ages and when you're a kid ( and a girl ) makes your life a living hell when the other kids laugh at you and reject you.

But are the kids going to be happy being FORCIBLY sent to the camp? No, I don't think they will appreciate it at all. But coming out of it with results, I think they would be very proud and they will have a chance to bond with people who are in a similar boat as them and make lasting friendships and find people they can workout with.

In that other thread of yours where you suggested that gym classes should teach kids how to have fun doing solitary exercises instead of team sports, you didn't get very far in explaining how to actually make those solo activities fun

Well first off, when you're fat and out of shape, NOTHING is fun. So you have to wip them into shape for a week or two. Once they see results and can do the activities then it becomes fun. You have to grab them before they are too fat gone basically. If they go to far, then FAT CAMP TIME.

Anyway, if we're talking solely about kids then what part of your program ensures that they keep up their exercising for the rest of their adult lives?

Nothing forces them, but at least they don't enter adulthood as lumbering ham beasts who's culinary knowledge extends to re-heating KFC wings.

Also, what kind of goals or standards do they need to meet?

That's up for debate but you can test for early signs of diabetes, heart disease, respiratory problems, asthma and high blood pressure. Combined with a certain % of body fat and a certain level of fitness.

You wouldn't need to be an athlete to escape fat camp, but I'd say a 30+ would qualify you instantly unless you're a bodybuilder.
If you have that kind of body as a kid, then it will only get worse as you age unless you change your habits.

At 10/5/09 05:49 PM, Proteas wrote: Here's an example.

You don't need to pay 4000 bucks a week for a summer camp.
You can easily find some for 200 a week and under.

You do realize that you can be be born with diabetes, right?

And you can contract it by being a fat piece of shit.
??

Really now...?

This doesn't even... address anything I've said.
???

This is the good old "fat people can be healthy" chesnut.
You know what? Thin people who are unhealthy are usually OUT OF SHAPE and fat people who are healthy are IN SHAPE.

That's why you see this. If you are athletic, your body can easily support a fuckton of blubber. But in all cases, being too fat is worse.

You would simply be healthier if you WEREN'T that fat.

Diet and exercise is daily / weekly until you die.

And how do you intend them NOT to view proper diet and exercise as "useless shit?"

I can't force them to not be insanely super-retarded, which is what you think people are apparently.

You might could quantify it as the number 2 contributing factor to preventable death, but that begs the question... what's number 1, and how do you determine such a thing?

Number 1 ( as far as I know, maybe obesity beat it by now) is lung cancer and it's caused 90% by smoking.
You count the dead. That's how your figure it.

Anyway I get what you mean by saying obesity is an umbrella term for many things that combine like lack of exercise, bad nutrition and excess of fat, but usually all of those go hand-in-hand hence why they're grouped under that category.

And I think it's fair to group them in this topic because I'm targeting all of those things at once. So call it what you want, but at the end of the day the number is still over 300k.

At 10/5/09 04:08 PM, michelinman wrote:

I disagree. Basically you would be hiring one personal trainer for every 5, maybe 6 kids that come in.

You don't need that or a gym or any of that shit.
It would be like a day camp. It would cost peanuts. If you can send your kid to a better one, fine, pay for it. But at the base, this would cost almost nothing.

For instance, the boy scouts cost like 120 bucks a week. And there's cheaper ones, but let's say 200 bucks a week for a summer, 7 weeks.
That's 1400 bucks plus you don't need to feed the kids. For one year.

Now look at this shit: 600 million pounds spent on diabetes medication in Britain.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles /164284.php
For a year. I don't know what that amounts to for the US, but you could send 500 000 kids to fat camp with that money.

And keep in mind that diabetes is for life once you have it. How much money do you think 30 years of diabetes medicine will cost you?

No, stupidity is the number one problem of first world countries.

Well consider good health education a step to lessen stupidity.

In a sense, yes they use up health care, but at the same time, their life expectancy is shortened, and they tend to die younger than healthy people.

They cost more because they stay sick all their lives and start getting sick younger and younger.

The choice is theirs as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah once you're 16, you're free from the fat camps. Congrats.
Until then, suck it up : D

At 10/5/09 04:49 PM, Proteas wrote:

Well, most people don't stick with the lessons they learned in school,

That's because they teach people useless bullshit they never use in daily life.
Diet and exercise is daily / weekly until you die.

Remove the obesity / malnutrition -related deaths from categories 1,2,3,4 and 6 and obesity is number 2 EASY

Cherry Picking.

???
No it's not. Obesity is not listed on there, did you wonder why? Even though you found an article that says there's 300 000 people who die from it in a year. It would be on that list, right? There's shit with only 30 000 there.
Where do you think the obesity deaths go? In categories 1,2,3,4 and 6. Those are the 300+ people who die from being fat sacks of butter.

At 10/5/09 04:00 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: Instead of mandatory fat camps they should make all gym equipment in schools and public/private gyms electricity-generating (e.g. "human hamster wheels") and give tax credits or insurance discounts (or whatever, on some kind of sliding scale of course) to people who generate x-amount of power over y-amount of time.

We're talking about kids here though so I don't know if they care about tax credits.

Rather than forcing people into shit just give them extra incentives to do it themselves.

We already force kids to do tons of things, so let's force them to do one more thing that is actually going to help them be happy.

At 10/5/09 04:04 PM, Proteas wrote: And continuing health education for LIFE after highschool, in addition to nationalized healthcare?

Wha?

Wanna bet?

Actually I was wrong, obesity is still number 2 I think, behind smoking.

That list only shows the disease, not what causes them. For instance, those cancers are in large part lung cancers caused by smoking. You don't see "smoking" in there but it would probably be number 1 if you removed the lung cancers from the "cancer" part and made them stand alone as "smoking". It's the same for obesity.

Smoking is the number 1 preventable thing people die off each year.
Obesity is number 2.

Remove the lung cancers and put them in their own category, you have smoking at number 1.
Remove the obesity / malnutrition -related deaths from categories 1,2,3,4 and 6 and obesity is number 2 EASY

At 10/5/09 03:20 PM, Proteas wrote:

And how many billions would be spent getting the fat people in shape?

I dunno, like 1/10th of the billions spent on diabetes medicine each year?

At 10/5/09 03:23 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Being fat isn't as counterproductive as being illiterate.

Well being illiterate doesn't drain the healthcare system :O

Malnutrition and obesity is the number 1 problem in the first world countries and it's all because of bad habits and bad education.

If we're willing to spend the money to educate people how to do math and learn history, I think it's a fair thing to use it to make them get in shape.

With this kind of fitness education, there's no guarantee that you'll stay fit once you're out of school and able to make your own decisions.

I think the success rate would be more than satisfactory. But we won't know until we try right?

So it's a goal for just about every country to make sure as many of the population as possible is literate. We do this because it produces educated workers and better citizens and is overall better for everyone.

If you suck in school, they will put you in a class to make you learn how to read. There are tutors, special classes and summer schools etc.

So I say: let's do that for fat kids. If you are a kid of X weight, then you spend your summer in fat camp. You get extra gym classes. You're gonna LOSE THE WEIGHT. With public healthcare, we can't afford all the fatties. And those people can't afford to be fat either. Free fat camp would save billions in the long run.

Let me know what you think ( i.e. how obviously right I am )

At 10/4/09 10:18 PM, Elfer wrote:

Olbermann's viewers consist entirely of liberal bloggers.

Who incidentally are also 95% of Bill Maher's audience.

Yeah are they CURRENTLY trying to get nukes?
How should I know?

A lot of people seem to think they want them BAD so they can achieve a position of power and blackmail the rest of the world into agreeing to their nutbar demands, like North Korea. It scares a lot of people to think that a country ruled by people who think they're going to heaven once they die is trying to get nukes.
They have litteraly everything to gain from nuking the entire planet, retaliation or no, if they think it gets them a seat in Heaven.

Fortunately for everyone, you have to be pretty fucking stupid to be that religious and the people who climb to the top of the power ladder usually aren't stupid and will probably NOT risk their own asses by starting that kind of insane war. HOPEFULLY.

Yeah I saw this TED talk some months ago about some dude's program to predict the future of political outcomes.
Sounded... decently reliable I guess.

Anyway, his estimate was that Iran will not go nuts like everyone fears. And that seems to be the sentiment of a bunch of people. The youth of Iran is much more secular than their parents and I don't think they'll let that place be run the way it has for much longer :o
In 20 years from now, I think Iran will be a lot tamer.

At 10/3/09 11:58 PM, Brick-top wrote:

So I have a challenge for you, pick something you already agree with (Religion, Politics, health etc) and argue AGAINST it.

You know, you eventually have to do that and I've been burned SO MANY TIMES.
You read this stuff and it sounds SO CONVINCING. Then you listen to expert advice and you realize that you were straight-out LIED TO.

The 9/11 videos for instance, Bigfoot etc. etc.

You listen to the Bigfoot people, and they will tell you they have HAIR. They have EXPERTS who say that THERE'S NO WAY A HUMAN COULD MAKE THOSE FOOTPRINTS. They have shit, sound recordings etc And on it goes. Man I know the perfect website to exemplify this: http://www.s8int.com/dna1.html

Pages and pages and pages of this stuff. Presented in an extremely convincing manner if you don't know anything about this.

I would say that the telltale sign of a conspiracy nut is that they have TONS and TONS of bad evidence, and no single piece of good evidence. Those are the people who will never argue ONE point, because they will lose it. So they flood you. They'll show you 1000 ghost photos and give you quotes from 200 eminent scientists about XYZ but will never linger on any single piece of evidence.

So yeah. Wait how many times have I said this now?
Bacon.
Bacon times.

At 10/3/09 08:06 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

But God DOES kill off EVERYONE. Only the "loving" explanation doesn't make sense. In order for God to love us, there has to be a heaven. In order for God to hate us, the world has to be pretty much like it is now.

Judging by the world, I'd say he doesn't give the least bit of a fuck about humans.
Who do you do to things you hate? You leave them be until they die of natural causes that could have been mostly avoided if they lived better? Yeah that's diabolical!
MWAHAHA I'LL MAKE IT SO YOU DIE OF HEART DISEASE AT 55 IF YOU EAT 1 POUND OF BACON EVERY DAY MWAHAHA.

MWAHAHA I WILL USE MY MIGHTY POWERS TO MAKE A UNIVERSE SO VAST THAT IS SPANS 30 BILLION LIGHTYEARS IN ALL DIRECTIONS AND ON ONE TINY PLANET AT RANDOM I WILL START EVOLUTION SO ONE DAY PEOPLE WILL BREAK UP AND FEEL BAD MWAHAHAH

Wait, I have it! I WILL BE SO BADASS THAT I'LL MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR LIFE TO EXIST IN 99.999999999% OF PLACES! TAKE THAT, NON-EXISTING ENTITIES!

If that's your vision of a hateful God, you seriously suck at hating. I can hate better than you in my sleep.

At 10/3/09 07:53 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

Than the idea that we were all created by the POWAR OF RANDOM!!!

No, that actually makes more sense.

Why would a loving god allow evil? TO MAKE HAPPINESS BETTER BY COMPARISON!
Why would a hateful god allow good? TO MAKE PAIN WORSE BY COMPARISON!

How strange that both opposite outcomes have the same explanation for not making sense.

At 10/3/09 07:46 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

But seriously, doesn't it make more sense that there IS a God, but He just really, REALLY hates us, and enjoys watching us suffer?

More sense than what?

At 10/3/09 07:28 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

So far this year, JR has died. Bones has died. C-Bas$ has died. For me and my friends, there has been more death in this year than anyone can remember. As this year draws to a close, many people I don't know personally but through acquaintances are also dying, one by one.

And yet a bunch of people won the lottery this year.
hmmm

MAKES YOU THINK RIGHT? asfdsfasdfads

At 10/3/09 01:02 PM, kaywire wrote:

scientifically speaking all it is , is you amiting a bigger electro static feild around your body..,

haha wow. For that sort of power to exist, you'd need to severly bend the laws of the universe because as far as I know, there's no a single machine that comes even close to doing those sorts of effects other than ENORMOUS magnetic field-generating machines that generate a field so powerful they can levitate small things like a spider.

The energy required to do this would be equivalent to ... probably dozens of pounds of fat per second. The fact that she just sits around doing this can clue you in to the fact that either she's got a trick ( duh ) or is bending the laws of the universe.

All of us could use this amazing power...

Yeah let me know when you've done it and you can win a million dollars off James Randi.

At 10/3/09 04:38 PM, Chdonga wrote: It's possible, but since we're too lazy to try it, we just say it's impossible.

So how do you know it's possible?

At 10/3/09 05:48 PM, Kwing wrote: That's why I'm a misanthrope: Because mankind is still as stupid and narrow-minded as it always was.

You are a dolt.
the end

But what about golden showers?
And cleveland steamers?
What consistency of poo is safest to spread on my face and penis?
How much semen can a person drink? Is it dangerous?
What smells should I be looking for in a vagina that would indicate a sad vagina to me?
Is it dangerous to choke yourself or someone else when you cum in their ass?
Does wearing leather increase the body temperature dangerously? How much leather can I wear?

If I have to buy sex toys, which brands are the best? What toys should I avoid? Do penis pumps work?

So many questions!

At 10/2/09 08:56 PM, TheShrike wrote:

Porn is already regulated.

Yes, I know that.
But find the arguments for why that is and then see if they can apply to food.

Another joke ruined by time stamps.
DAMN YOOOOOOU

At 10/2/09 01:07 AM, HorseloverFrost wrote: it has lead to the almost total loss of the art of the insult in modern society.

I think we'll manage to live anyway...

At 10/2/09 12:12 PM, Ericho wrote:

In the older days, "damn" was the same as "fuck" because we were more motivated by religion in profanity, but now as fewer people become religious it's more about bodily functions.

Ericho, every time you've posted recently, you have made more and more sense.
So good job on becoming less crazy every week.

*gold star*

At 10/2/09 03:27 PM, animehater wrote: There has been so much criticism about Obama and what he's doing with Iran, Afghanistan, and Russia. Now the man can't even get the Olympics over here? This just makes the man look like shit.

Yes that is true. Every 4 years, the only competent world leader is the one who gets the Olympics in his country. The other ones are clearly idiots.

At 10/1/09 09:28 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

It's not the government's job to protect people from their own decisions.

Ok, knowing that obesity highly raises your risk of heart disease and diabetes, couldn't it be considered child abuse to feed a child only crap?
And couldn't it be considered criminal to slowly kill yourself and leave your family alone, unable to fend for themselves?

Something to think about.

Yes, upload this to Youtube and become a winner.

At 10/1/09 09:09 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/1/09 09:04 PM, poxpower wrote: Everyone does it, you don't get to make up special magic rules that state you can say "darn" but not "fuck".

Why? Because you said so? Based on WHAT?

Based on 2 pages of things that went straight over your head like Liu Kang bicycle kicking in a village of midgets.

At 10/1/09 08:48 PM, Proteas wrote:

Swearing predates modern religion

Who said "modern"?
Swearing is a way to release emotions that all humans feel. Just because you change the word "fuck" to "darn" or "slippery muffincakes!" doesn't make a difference. Everyone does it, you don't get to make up special magic rules that state you can say "darn" but not "fuck".

N
O
N
S
E
N
S
E

But then again, you did argue earlier on this topic that you would use social norms to determine the letter of the law, didn't you?

I've said the opposite about 50 times so far.

At 10/1/09 05:34 PM, Proteas wrote:

Because swearing is a behavioral issue. And bad behavior can significantly impact your future.

Nothing in there makes any mention of swearing or hearing swearing and they make it quite clear they are talking about bad behavior that is NOT cultural such as defying authority, throwing tantrums and being unruly, lazy dicks.

You want to know where the opposition to swearing began?
http://www.andrewgray.com/essays/swearin g.htm

Look no further than religion. That should be your first clue as to how much bullshit you're dealing with when you talk about what is a "curse / profane" word.

Swear words have started out as religious offenses. Now they're social offenses. They're shifting to racial offenses ( look no further than this forum, where I can say "fuck all the cunts" but not the n-word ).

They do nothing until you react to them. You're the one perpetuating the power and social problems caused by these words because of your uptightness and your wild belief that swearing translates into bad behavior and a terrible society.

/// this is not a repeat from 1850 ////

At 10/1/09 04:49 PM, Proteas wrote:

You honestly think they aren't swearing in those schools with everything else that's going on?

That was never the point.
I keep asking you for a causal link between swearing and other things and you keep coming back at me with things that don't even mention swearing.
Or that simply say swearing is on the rise without concluding anything about it.

Here's an easy way to make swearing rise: make the word "darn" a swear word. WOW 13% INCREASE! Did kids get 13% stupider or even 1% stupider all of a sudden? It seems pretty clear to me that for swearing to cause any sort of problem is purely nonsensical since a swear word is not anything other than a word that si consdered by X people to be vulgar.
It can change at any time. Tomorrow, 10 new words can be added to that list, or 10 words can be taken out. Even depending on the city you're in or the person you're talking to it changes.

How can something so impossible to define and easy to change be blamed for anything? It's REDONCULUS!

Where's the study that shows kid's grades drop suddenly as they start using swear words?
That would be a GREAT study to back up your claim. Take X kids who don't swear, take half and make them swear, take the other half and don't make them swear and then send them to school, instructing everyone else to act normal.
Let it go on for a month, a week, a year or whatever and see what happens!