Extremely fat people

[LilKateMoss]

I just went outside the office to get some fresh air and there was a HUGE woman holding a half-eaten burger on one hand and a lit cigarette on the other. Disgusting sight, bitch ruined my day.

[TylerOO]

Obese people make me sick

[Psycho]

I just went outside the office to get some fresh air and there was a HUGE woman holding a half-eaten burger on one hand and a lit cigarette on the other. Disgusting sight, bitch ruined my day.

She is a big, beautiful woman. If you can't appreciate that, just don't look at her. Fat shaming is the real shame.

[B-Low]

Overweight people I don't have a problem with. But I do have a problem with the INSANELY obese people who expect to be catered to because they're insanely obese.

I work at a bank and I had a huge woman the other day flipping out because the drive-up ATM was out of order so she had to come in. She comes in dripping sweat, breathing heavy saying she wanted to file a complaint because she had to get out of her car in 90 degree weather and it's not easy for her to walk without her cane. B!tch whose fault is that??

[Goldrush25]

Why would obese people anger you?

Majority of the country is overweight. That's mainly because of the misinformation doled out by the FDA about dietary requirements. I wouldn't say it's because they want to be fat or that they just don't give a damn in general. People in general just don't know how to lose weight and keep it off.

[bmulls]

Why would obese people anger you?

Majority of the country is overweight. That's mainly because of the misinformation doled out by the FDA about dietary requirements. I wouldn't say it's because they want to be fat or that they just don't give a damn in general. People in general just don't know how to lose weight and keep it off.

Yeah right :lol Most obese people are lazy and gluttunous.

If you want to lose weight, eat less and exercise more.

There, I've just solved the obesity epidemic.

[LilKateMoss]

Overweight people I don't have a problem with. But I do have a problem with the INSANELY obese people who expect to be catered to because they're insanely obese.

I work at a bank and I had a huge woman the other day flipping out because the drive-up ATM was out of order so she had to come in. She comes in dripping sweat, breathing heavy saying she wanted to file a complaint because she had to get out of her car in 90 degree weather and it's not easy for her to walk without her cane. B!tch whose fault is that??

I don't usually have a problem with overweight people myself, unless they start complaining about how fat they are. Now obese people disgust me, unless it's some medical condition. Just try to picture this morbidly obese woman smoking a cigarette while eating a hamburger in the middle of the street, with her face covered in sweat and ketchup dripping on the ground...

[B-Low]

Why would obese people anger you?

Majority of the country is overweight. That's mainly because of the misinformation doled out by the FDA about dietary requirements. I wouldn't say it's because they want to be fat or that they just don't give a damn in general. People in general just don't know how to lose weight and keep it off.

Ok no. You don't get to be 300+ pounds because of "misinformation". If you're a 5'6 woman and you're at 200 pounds...then 220....then 250....then 260, wouldn't you think at some point common sense would kick in and you wouldn't keep thinking "hey they said this food was good for me, so i'll keep eating it even though i'm 150 pounds overweight now". People might not know how to be in peak physical shape, have washboard abs and muscles etc, but people know how to NOT be obese.

That's the main problem, people just wanna make excuses for it and blame everything BUT a lack of effort. Food companies, technology, TV, genetics, their schedule....sometimes there really IS a legit disorder or something at work, but the fact is 95 times out of 100, it's a lack of effort.

[Goldrush25]

Yeah right :lol Most obese people are lazy and gluttunous.

If you want to lose weight, eat less and exercise more.
There, I've just solved the obesity epidemic.

As a general rule yes. But everyone's body is different. I've been skinny my whole life, it's never been a problem for me to lose weight. But I can recognize that everyone's body isn't built the same. Some people are more prone to keep on weight, just like some people are more prone to alcohol addiction. A bigger person could follow my plan for weight loss and not lose half the weight that I do.

[Is He Ill]

As a general rule yes. But everyone's body is different. I've been skinny my whole life, it's never been a problem for me to lose weight. But I can recognize that everyone's body isn't built the same. Some people are more prone to keep on weight, just like some people are more prone to alcohol addiction. A bigger person could follow my plan for weight loss and not lose half the weight that I do.

If they operate at a calorie deficit, they will lose weight over time. It doesn't matter how their body is built.

[ballup]

I think that all morbidly obese people just want to walk like penguins. Is that really wrong? Penguins are fukin adorable.

[AngelEyes]

There's no excuse for being morbidly obese. People should not have to cater to the obese. Do you know how easy it is not to be dangerously fat? Walk around the ****ing block, go ride a bike, go walk on a damn treadmill. It's not hard.

[Goldrush25]

If they operate at a calorie deficit, they will lose weight over time. It doesn't matter how their body is built.

Again, as a general rule, yes. But if you're still eating the same crappy foods, but at a lower calorie count, you just become a smaller fat person, if that makes sense. Health wise, the benefit gained from losing weight like that is nil.

The key is "lifestyle change" not simply eat less, exercise more. Junk foods have to be limited to occasional treats, not every day indulgences. Fruits and vegetables need to be an every day part of their diet. And yes, exercise at least once every 48 hours.

And the biggest problem is all of these "diets" out there. The only way to lose weight and keep it off, is a lifestyle change. Not any of this short term Atkins, South Beach, or any of those other fad diets. Research shows that people that lose weight on those gain it all back and then some when they revert back to their previous lifestyle.

Another problem is a lot of the foods that are touted as good foods, like whole grains, are really the things holding these people back from losing weight. That's what I mean by misinformation. Science has shown that those foods spike insulin levels, which promotes fat gain and retention. I'm not saying it's the sole excuse, but everyone in the US just needs to be re-educated on the latest nutrition science that's out there.

[rezznor]

unless they have some legit medical condition, i have no sympathy for obese people.

especially hate it if i get seated next to one on an airplane. bitch better go buy 2 seats if she's so fat that she starts spilling over to my side.

[rezznor]

She is a big, beautiful woman. If you can't appreciate that, just don't look at her. Fat shaming is the real shame.


http://flipvine.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cheetos.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/20z3d6w.png

welcome back Mbell

[ballup]

You know you'd like to see her twerk.

[AngelEyes]

She is a big, beautiful woman. If you can't appreciate that, just don't look at her. Fat shaming is the real shame.

Why is she beautiful?

[HarryCallahan]

So you made a thread about seeing an obese person? I get it if she was sitting next to you on a flight, but you only saw her, just look away you little b!tch.

[Jameerthefear]

I try not to judge them, but it's hard :/

[Is He Ill]

Again, as a general rule, yes. But if you're still eating the same crappy foods, but at a lower calorie count, you just become a smaller fat person, if that makes sense.

The key is "lifestyle change" not simply eat less, exercise more. And the biggest problem is all of these "diets" out there. The only way to lose weight and keep it off, is a lifestyle change. Not any of this short term Atkins, South Beach, or any of those other fad diets. Research shows that people that lose weight on those gain it all back and then some when they revert back to their previous lifestyle.

Another problem is a lot of the foods that are touted as good foods, like whole grains, are really the things holding these people back from losing weight. That's what I mean by misinformation. Science has shown that those foods spike insulin levels, which promotes fat gain and retention. I'm not saying it's the sole excuse, but everyone in the US just needs to be re-educated on the latest nutrition science that's out there.

I completely agree with the majority of your post. That being said, a lot of obese people are well aware that they are consuming crap, yet choose to do so anyway. Many fat people simply have a lack of initiative and I personally believe that much of the obesity issue has to do with sheer laziness.

[Quizno]

http://flipvine.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cheetos.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/20z3d6w.png

welcome back Mbell
LLLMMAAAOOO mbell...the good ol' days....

[Quizno]

not tryna hijack this thread but i was going through some of the old mbell threads. so much funny shit there :oldlol: i can't believe that was 4 years ago

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=157635

my personal favorite...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=157987&page=3

[Goldrush25]

I completely agree with the majority of your post. That being said, a lot of obese people are well aware that they are consuming crap, yet choose to do so anyway. Many fat people simply have a lack of initiative and I personally believe that much of the obesity issue has to do with sheer laziness.

A lot of the time that does apply, but again, there are differences in people's body morphology. I know people that are equally as lazy as it pertains to their diet and exercise, yet they still look skinny. They can get away with it, whereas a naturally heavy set person eats the exact same way and he is morbidly obese. That's genetics and has ziltch to do with work ethic.

The problem is the perception is that fat people are lazy and skinny people work hard, when that's not always the case. I've been skinny my whole life. In years past, I would really pig out to gain fat, I mean fast food every day, sometimes multiple times a day, and people would still say I look skinny. Whereas someone else would eat the same way and be 300 pounds.

[ConanRulesNBC]

Overweight people I don't have a problem with. But I do have a problem with the INSANELY obese people who expect to be catered to because they're insanely obese.

I work at a bank and I had a huge woman the other day flipping out because the drive-up ATM was out of order so she had to come in. She comes in dripping sweat, breathing heavy saying she wanted to file a complaint because she had to get out of her car in 90 degree weather and it's not easy for her to walk without her cane. B!tch whose fault is that??

This. I see some people in those scooters because they're too fat to get up and walk. Even at my heaviest I was never near that. How could anyone have such little respect for themselves that they would let themselves get that big?

[ConanRulesNBC]

What I've been learning since losing a lot of weight is simply don't over eat. Yes, I still have ways to go and I still need to make some changes. But here's the thing. Last year I would go out to lunch sometimes and eat two huge slices of pizza. Now I don't even eat a whole slice by myself, I split it. I don't eat 2 bowls of cereal at breakfast, I'll have one. If I want some chips I'll fill up a small bowl with a couple hand fulls and leave it at that. I won't sit down with the entire bag of chips in front of me and eat the entire thing. Drinking water instead of pop is the main thing for me. I was drinking a ridiculous amount of pepsi/mountain dew the past few years. I gave it up. I'll have some Diet Pepsi/Coke Zero once in a while. But other than that I'm drinking water. I'll have milk in my cereal, maybe half a glass of orange juice for breakfast and then it's just water the rest of the day.

My point is, you don't even need to give up "junk food" completely (although that would be good). Just don't eat an entire bag of chips or an entire box of cereal or go through a whole 2 liter of coke or pepsi in one night.

[Goldrush25]

What I've been learning since losing a lot of weight is simply don't over eat. Yes, I still have ways to go and I still need to make some changes. But here's the thing. Last year I would go out to lunch sometimes and eat two huge slices of pizza. Now I don't even eat a whole slice by myself, I split it. I don't eat 2 bowls of cereal at breakfast, I'll have one. If I want some chips I'll fill up a small bowl with a couple hand fulls and leave it at that. I won't sit down with the entire bag of chips in front of me and eat the entire thing. Drinking water instead of pop is the main thing for me. I was drinking a ridiculous amount of pepsi/mountain dew the past few years. I gave it up. I'll have some Diet Pepsi/Coke Zero once in a while. But other than that I'm drinking water. I'll have milk in my cereal, maybe half a glass of orange juice for breakfast and then it's just water the rest of the day.

My point is, you don't even need to give up "junk food" completely (although that would be good). Just don't eat an entire bag of chips or an entire box of cereal or go through a whole 2 liter of coke or pepsi in one night.

Well yeah, soda has a lot to do with the obesity epidemic. It has absolutely zero beneficial calories. Sodas, Starbucks, it's all useless. If everyone cut out those sugar-filled drinks and drank water instead, we would have no obesity epidemic.

Hell I'm not perfect. Far from it. I limit myself to one cheat meal a week. I love burgers. If there were a good substitute for it I'd go for it.

Soda has tons of good substitutes nowadays. Everyone in the world can and should dump soda from their diet, or at least stick to diet soda.

[Dresta]

Why mention the cigarette, that certainly didn't make her fat. Perhaps she'd be twice the size without some trusty ****.

[Hoodlum Science]

Some original Legend of Josh lyrics:

"**** a fat bitch, I kill, a fat bitch..."

"**** a fat beeich, I once ****ed a fat beeichh..."

"Made my dick itch, smell like Filet O Fish"

"I hate the excessive guts, blubber butts and Mayo sluts"
"Can't keeps food out they mouf, more calories than Pizza Hut..."

"Pappa John's and Burger King combined-"
"Where's there food, these ho'z unite like a holy shrine"

"All hail, the all mightly all powerful grubbing Gods"
"Short-stop like A-Rod, catchin' Big Mac's out the air like a lob - "

"Slam dunk on a *****'z until they fully fed, "
"Fully wed, married to fast food, half as rude, get up in that ass if you exclude"

"Them from the feeding chain, **** a brain, **** a lame, don't give a **** as long as they get french fries mang"

"Sammichez, crispy nuggets, and milk shakes, jump up in the sky land and cause some quakes"
"Can't stomp on the brakes, got a chicken pot pie in the oven gettin' baked"

"Cookin' at one-thousand-degreez, and if a ***** interfere he gettin' deez-"

"Bullets in the face, no time to say grace, time to eat buckle up for embrace, tables shakin' frosting and cakin' I helped with the shake-n-bakin' Frosted-Flakin' bodies in the ground sad faces wakin' poor Susie Sally overdoses from too much Ranch dressing -"

"No one confessing, thought she had a baby in the stomach when she caressing, but no baby there, just fat, so we got a juiced 2002 Baby Bones steppin' up to bat, bash that belly baby remains go SPLAT!"

"All again\st the wall, **** a fat bitch, and all the idiots that fed yall"

"Mommy and daddy said it's OK, she'll grow out of it"
"But the older she got, the more she consumed powdered doughnuts kid"

"Couldn't stop shoving pizza down her throat, if she could, ho would eat a boat"
"Once ate a raw goat, raw bars of soap, fat so stomach kept a bitch afloat"

"YO ... YOU KNOW HOW THE SONG GO!" ... "WE LOVE A FAT BITCH! I KILL A FAT BITCH! ... "WE LOVE A FAT BITCH, WE ONCE ****ED A FAT BITCH, MADE OUR ***** ITCH! ... WE ONCE ****ED A FAT BITCH, SMELLED LIKE FILET O FISH!"

"YO, WE HATE FAT TRICKS, SO WE LET B-LOW STEP UP SMASH THAT BITCH 'TIL A *****'Z THRIST QUENCH, MAD STAMINA LIKE SPARKS COMIN' OFF THE BENCH..."

[Hoodlum Science]

fat person detected

perhaps not, could just as easily be BMFFFWW (black man fiend'n for fat white woman).

*B-Low cough*

[HarryCallahan]

Well yeah, soda has a lot to do with the obesity epidemic. It has absolutely zero beneficial calories. Sodas, Starbucks, it's all useless. If everyone cut out those sugar-filled drinks and drank water instead, we would have no obesity epidemic.

Hell I'm not perfect. Far from it. I limit myself to one cheat meal a week. I love burgers. If there were a good substitute for it I'd go for it.

Soda has tons of good substitutes nowadays. Everyone in the world can and should dump soda from their diet, or at least stick to diet soda.

Worst dieting advice ever. Artificial sweeteners (like those in diet coke) are just as un-healthy, and are carcinogenic.

Just remember Conan, the stomach is elastic. You keep on the right track and pretty soon there'll be no turning back. :cheers:

[HarryCallahan]

Some original Legend of Josh lyrics:


Why'd you get banned?

[Hoodlum Science]

http://flipvine.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cheetos.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/20z3d6w.png

welcome back Mbell

... Mbell ... or Lamar Doom. He's from Iowa, and to be fair, sure he isn't a blump fatty stepping on the scale and it reading "YOU FAT PIECE OF SHIT!" but it would surely indicate he's undeniably overweight, and if it had the know-how to do so, indicate he's a piece of shit.

Iowa boys who run away from home for Los Angeles to pursue the highly unlikely Hollywood dream FTW!

:rockon:

[Hoodlum Science]

Why mention the cigarette, that certainly didn't make her fat. Perhaps she'd be twice the size without some trusty ****.

Because the cigarettes makes her just that much more hideous. Let me guess, you're a smoker yourself? Yeah well, to each their own, but many of us feel smoking is an acutely unattractively trait to possess.

[Myth]

My best female friend was morbidly obese, so I can't say I have anything against them. She has since lost about 200 pounds and is still obese, but not morbidly anymore. She also makes me realize the ignorance I see in society (and this thread). I believe she has some sort of hormone problem, because she has had her stomach stapled (about 4 years ago), eats well, and exercises all the time and is still 200+ pounds.

[Hoodlum Science]

Hey Macho Man ... what's your opinion of women who are smokers? Are you a smoker yourself? If not, do you ****z with womenz who is?

[Goldrush25]

Worst dieting advice ever. Artificial sweeteners (like those in diet coke) are just as un-healthy, and are carcinogenic.

Just remember Conan, the stomach is elastic. You keep on the right track and pretty soon there'll be no turning back. :cheers:

Doesn't sound like you really know what you're talking about. Diet sodas are not "as unhealthy" as regular soda. Not even close. And there are no studies that conclusively prove that artificial sweeteners are carcinogenic. If there were, there would be an FDA warning on every can of Diet Coke.

And my official dieting advice would be to never drink soda, limit carbs to less than 100 grams per day, limit whole grains, eat at least 2 servings of fruit and vegetables per day, and exercise 4-5 times per week. That's what I do.

But I realize that everyone isn't a robot like I am. So if they can get rid of the sugar cola and change to diet soda, that's better than doing nothing. Baby steps.

[Hoodlum Science]

I don't smoke. I think it's unattractive but I have been attracted to women who smoke.

What's attractive to women who smoke? You say you're attracted to them? So what's appealing to a woman who's sucking on a cancer stick? Maybe you can enlighten us.

"Yo, look at me Macho Man" ... "look at me sucking on this cancer pole, yeah you like that, look at that smoke baby boi, yeah you like that, that get your deek hard? Yeah boi, you like that?!"

:rolleyes:

[Hoodlum Science]

:oldlol:

I've been attracted to girls who smoke but I would prefer they didn't smoke.

LOL and I'm just being dumb and retarded ... good response ... but yo dude, shit is gross. You need to quit, dumbass.

Real talk.

[HarryCallahan]

Doesn't sound like you really know what you're talking about. Diet sodas are not "as unhealthy" as regular soda. Not even close. And there are no studies that conclusively prove that artificial sweeteners are carcinogenic. If there were, there would be an FDA warning on every can of Diet Coke.

And my official dieting advice would be to never drink soda, limit carbs to less than 100 grams per day, limit whole grains, eat at least 2 servings of fruit and vegetables per day, and exercise 4-5 times per week. That's what I do.

But I realize that everyone isn't a robot like I am. So if they can get rid of the sugar cola and change to diet soda, that's better than doing nothing. Baby steps.

Doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about buddy.

First of all, the absence of an fda warning doesn't mean sh!t. If you believe, even for a second that the fda gives a single solitary sh!t about your health or anybody's for that matter, you're an idiot.

[QUOTE]In a recent study, researchers from the School of Medicine at The University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio revealed results that showed the link between diet soda intake and weight gain over time,

[Goldrush25]

Doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about buddy.

First of all, the absence of an fda warning doesn't mean sh!t. If you believe, even for a second that the fda gives a single solitary sh!t about your health or anybody's for that matter, you're an idiot.



On Sodium and Potassium Benzoate



LMFAO @ "2 servings of fruit and vegetables" another piece of sh!tty, unsolicited advice from a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about

Ah profanity, the refuge of the imbecile. :oldlol:

Of course it matters. The FDA is the regulatory body of food and dietary supplements in the United States. If a relevant correlation were ever established between artificial sweeteners and cancer the FDA eagerly would inform the public. It actually would be in their best interests as the government has long been known to promote agriculture, and sugar (more specifically high fructose corn syrup) is agriculture. If they could put a black mark on artificial sweeteners, they would.

You're making yourself look ignorant. You haven't provided any studies that prove conclusively that artificial sweeteners cause cancer. That's what you said they do.

You can dig up studies that contain internal logical consistencies about a lot of things. I'm talking about conclusive proof.

People that drink diet sodas and gain weight, don't gain weight because of the sodas. They gain weight because they don't properly modify their macronutrient intake. If you drink diet sodas and you're still ingesting 150+ grams of carbs a day, yeah you're going to still gain weight. If you drink diet sodas, exercise every 48 hours, maintain a low carb diet, and eat healthy proteins and fats, guess what, you won't gain weight. But I'm not surprised that you're deriving simple conclusions from a simple study.

Do real research. Don't just try to google random studies and think they'll stick.

[Nanners]

Ah profanity, the refuge of the imbecile. :oldlol:

Of course it matters. The FDA is the regulatory body of food and dietary supplements in the United States. If a relevant correlation were ever established between artificial sweeteners and cancer the FDA eagerly would inform the public. It actually would be in their best interests as the government has long been known to promote agriculture, and sugar (more specifically high fructose corn syrup) is agriculture. If they could put a black mark on artificial sweeteners, they would.

You're making yourself look ignorant. You haven't provided any studies that prove conclusively that artificial sweeteners cause cancer. That's what you said they do.

You can dig up studies that contain logical consistencies about a lot of things. I'm talking about conclusive proof.


i doubt that. the FDA is basically a subsidiary of monsanto these days. profits before public.

[HarryCallahan]

Ah profanity, the refuge of the imbecile. :oldlol:

Of course it matters. The FDA is the regulatory body of food and dietary supplements in the United States. If a relevant correlation were ever established between artificial sweeteners and cancer the FDA eagerly would inform the public. It actually would be in their best interests as the government has long been known to promote agriculture, and sugar (more specifically high fructose corn syrup) is agriculture. If they could put a black mark on artificial sweeteners, they would.

You're making yourself look ignorant. You haven't provided any studies that prove conclusively that artificial sweeteners cause cancer. That's what you said they do.

You can dig up studies that contain logical consistencies about a lot of things. I'm talking about conclusive proof.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, because I used the words "f*ck" and "sh!tty" i'm obviously an imbecile, says the moron who thinks the fda have the publics interest in mind.

And i'm "ignorant" according to the spastic that says diet-sodas are healthier, despite his reluctance to show any kind of evidence. :facepalm

It's a widely known fact the fatter you are, the more likely you are to get cancer.

You wanna show any evidence to support your claim that diet-soda is healthier? No? k.

And again f'ing LOL at "2 servings of fruit and vegetables per day" being enough. That one really cracks me up. Worst dietary advice ever.

[AintNoSunshine]

I just went outside the office to get some fresh air and there was a HUGE woman holding a half-eaten burger on one hand and a lit cigarette on the other. Disgusting sight, bitch ruined my day.


I look at it as a lack of self respect, to allow yourself to look like that by having no self restraint. Just weak minded individuals who let laziness and desires get the better of their judgement give up on theirselves

[Goldrush25]

:rolleyes:

Yeah, because I used the words "f*ck" and "sh!tty" i'm obviously an imbecile, says the moron who thinks the fda have the publics interest in mind.

And i'm "ignorant" according to the spastic that says diet-sodas are healthier, despite his reluctance to show any kind of evidence. :facepalm

It's a widely known fact the fatter you are, the more likely you are to get cancer.

You wanna show any evidence to support your claim that diet-soda is healthier? No? k.

And again f'ing LOL at "2 servings of fruit and vegetables per day" being enough. That one really cracks me up. Worst dietary advice ever.

Diet sodas are healthier than regular sodas. That's axiomatic. Why does that need proving?

A 12 ounce can of Coca Cola has 39 grams of sugar in it. A 12 ounce can of Coke Zero has zero grams of sugar in it. Do I have to explain this to you?:oldlol:

The risk of developing Type II Diabetes is far greater and well substantiated than developing cancer from artificial sweeteners (which again, has not been proven).

And I don't think you're in any position to deride my dietary habits when you can't even understand how a sugar flavored drink is worse for you than an artificially sweetened alternative.

Yeah I eat two servings of vegetables and fruits a day. That's actually very good. 5 total is what's recommended. They don't mean 5 vegetables and 5 fruits.:confusedshrug:

[HarryCallahan]

Diet sodas are healthier than regular sodas. That's axiomatic. Why does that need proving?

A 12 ounce can of Coca Cola has 39 grams of sugar in it. A 12 ounce can of Coke Zero has zero grams of sugar in it. Do I have to explain this to you?:oldlol:

The risk of developing Type II Diabetes is far greater and well substantiated than developing cancer from artificial sweeteners (which again, has not been proven).

And I don't think you're in any position to deride my dietary habits when you can't even understand how a sugar flavored drink is worse for you than an artificially sweetened alternative.

Yeah I eat two servings of vegetables and fruits a day. That's actually very good. 5 total is what's recommended. They don't mean 5 vegetables and 5 fruits.:confusedshrug:

How is it axiomatic? Because of the name? Well I dub you "stupidest poster on ISH" now that is becoming rather axiomatic.

OH! 2 servings of fruit!!?? I hope you know how much sugar is in that!!!! Diabeetus comin' for you.

Your line of thinking begins and ends with the assumption that Coca-Cola is being honest with you with their branding of "diet" coke. "Its called diet, so it must be better..." Just like you assume the fda has your best interests at heart.

Depends on whose advice you take, but generally it's 1 fruit 5 vegetables, because as you know sugar causes diabetes.

[RRR3]

What about Big Pun, tho?

[Goldrush25]

How is it axiomatic? Because of the name? Well I dub you "stupidest poster on ISH" now that is becoming rather axiomatic.

OH! 2 servings of fruit!!?? I hope you know how much sugar is in that!!!! Diabeetus comin' for you.

Your line of thinking begins and ends with the assumption that Coca-Cola is being honest with you with their branding of "diet" coke. "Its called diet, so it must be better..." Just like you assume the fda has your best interests at heart.

Depends on whose advice you take, but generally it's 1 fruit 5 vegetables, because as you know sugar causes diabetes.

Ok, I can now clearly see how little you know. So I'll give you a short science lesson.

It's axiomatic because SUGAR (now high fructose corn syrup is used because it's cheaper to use than cane sugar) causes insulin increase in the blood stream. Insulin increase is followed by fat storage. It's true that fruits contain fructose as well, but a serving of fruit also contains fiber, which slows the intake of simple sugars into the body. Also fruits contain vitamins and minerals, sodas usually do not.

I never said that the FDA has the public's interests at heart. I said they have their own agenda, most specifically agriculture. If they could get artificial sweeteners off the market, that means they could sell more sugar and high fructose corn syrup. It's a zero-sum game. They have no proof that artificial sweeteners cause cancer.

Healthier may not be the best word, but diet soda is definitely the lesser of two evils. I don't see how that can be disputed based on what we know. Less sugar means better for you. Simple as that. I rarely drink sodas and I would advocate that no one drink them. However if it's something that someone can't give up, yeah diet sodas are better than the full fledged sodas.

[HarryCallahan]

Ok, I can now clearly see how little you know. So I'll give you a short science lesson.

It's axiomatic because SUGAR (now high fructose corn syrup is used because it's cheaper to use than cane sugar) causes insulin increase in the blood stream. Insulin increase is followed by fat storage. It's true that fruits contain fructose as well, but a serving of fruit also contains fiber, which slows the intake of simple sugars into the body. Also fruits contain vitamins and minerals, sodas usually do not.

I never said that the FDA has the public's interests at heart. I said they have their own agenda, most specifically agriculture. If they could get artificial sweeteners off the market, that means they could sell more sugar and high fructose corn syrup. It's a zero-sum game. They have no proof that artificial sweeteners cause cancer.

Healthier may not be the best word, but diet soda is definitely the lesser of two evils. I don't see how that can be disputed based on what we know. Less sugar means better for you. Simple as that. I rarely drink sodas and I would advocate that no one drink them. However if it's something that someone can't give up, yeah diet sodas are better than the full fledged sodas.

I didn't ask for a lesson on metabolism you arrogant little pr!ck.

Less sugar doesn't = better for you.

There are too many factors here; body type, metabolic rate, height, gender, exercise, diet, discipline etc.
For somebody who eats little carbs, sure there may be fewer adverse effects, but most people get 40+% of their energy through carbs and don't exercise, so they are obviously going to retain the fat, which means greater risk of cancer.

"The world doesn't move to the beat of just one drum, what may be right for you, may not be right for some..."

[bmulls]

:rolleyes:

Yeah, because I used the words "f*ck" and "sh!tty" i'm obviously an imbecile, says the moron who thinks the fda have the publics interest in mind.

And i'm "ignorant" according to the spastic that says diet-sodas are healthier, despite his reluctance to show any kind of evidence. :facepalm

It's a widely known fact the fatter you are, the more likely you are to get cancer.

You wanna show any evidence to support your claim that diet-soda is healthier? No? k.

And again f'ing LOL at "2 servings of fruit and vegetables per day" being enough. That one really cracks me up. Worst dietary advice ever.

You think the FDA is the only entity that can study things? There are no legitimate medical studies that suggest aspartame has any negative effects whatsoever.

The worst they've been able to show is that it MIGHT cause you to crave sweet things more.

A diet soda is a million times better for you than a regular soda. I drink a lot of diet soda and I can guarantee you I'm in better shape than you.

[DeuceWallaces]

Ok, I can now clearly see how little you know. So I'll give you a short science lesson.

It's axiomatic because SUGAR (now high fructose corn syrup is used because it's cheaper to use than cane sugar) causes insulin increase in the blood stream. Insulin increase is followed by fat storage. It's true that fruits contain fructose as well, but a serving of fruit also contains fiber, which slows the intake of simple sugars into the body. Also fruits contain vitamins and minerals, sodas usually do not.

I never said that the FDA has the public's interests at heart. I said they have their own agenda, most specifically agriculture. If they could get artificial sweeteners off the market, that means they could sell more sugar and high fructose corn syrup. It's a zero-sum game. They have no proof that artificial sweeteners cause cancer.

Healthier may not be the best word, but diet soda is definitely the lesser of two evils. I don't see how that can be disputed based on what we know. Less sugar means better for you. Simple as that. I rarely drink sodas and I would advocate that no one drink them. However if it's something that someone can't give up, yeah diet sodas are better than the full fledged sodas.

Callahan is an idiot but diet sodas are as bad or worse than regular soda. There's plenty of research out there; most of it having come in the past 2 years.

[bmulls]

Callahan is an idiot but diet sodas are as bad or worse than regular soda. There's plenty of research out there; most of it having come in the past 2 years.

:facepalm

Just shut the fck up

[Goldrush25]

Callahan is an idiot but diet sodas are as bad or worse than regular soda. There's plenty of research out there; most of it having come in the past 2 years.

That's exactly what he's saying and I'm not following the logic. I'm not dismissing the premise just to dismiss it. I'm just asking for the evidence. Why are they "just as bad?" There are just as many studies, if not more, saying that artificial sweeteners are safe as there are saying that they cause cancer.

There was also plenty of research conducted after Eisenhower croaked that said that foods high in cholesterol raise serum cholesterol levels and cause heart disease. The Lipid Hypothesis had an internal logical consistency, but 50 years later it's widely considered to be bunk. A study, in of itself means little. I'm talking about direct facts, not circumstantial evidence.

Facts like, excessive carbohydrate consumption over time leads to the development of Type II Diabetes. That is a statement that has been proven.

[HarryCallahan]

You think the FDA is the only entity that can study things? There are no legitimate medical studies that suggest aspartame has any negative effects whatsoever.

The worst they've been able to show is that it MIGHT cause you to crave sweet things more.

A diet soda is a million times better for you than a regular soda. I drink a lot of diet soda and I can guarantee you I'm in better shape than you.

:applause:

And that proves what exactly???


Callahan is an idiot but diet sodas are as bad or worse than regular soda. There's plenty of research out there; most of it having come in the past 2 years.

The f*ck did I ever do to you, you little ****?

[bmulls]

:applause:

And that proves what exactly???

The f*ck did I ever do to you, you little ****?

It means I've both empirical and anecdotal evidence that you are wrong

[Nanners]

dont know as much about science as a lot of you experts, but based on the anecdotal evidence provided by the posters in this thread there appears to be a strong link between diet soda intake and douchebaggery

[bmulls]

dont know as much about science as a lot of you experts, but based on the anecdotal evidence provided by the posters in this thread there appears to be a strong link between diet soda intake and douchebaggery

Piss off dude, you've been all over my nuts in multiple threads.

[HarryCallahan]

It means I've both empirical and anecdotal evidence that you are wrong

Links? No? k. So far you've only got anecdotes of anecdotal evidence. What's the bet your a walrus lookin' mother-f*cker


dont know as much about science as a lot of you experts, but based on the anecdotal evidence provided by the posters in this thread there appears to be a strong link between diet soda intake and douchebaggery

:oldlol:

[Dresta]

Ok no. You don't get to be 300+ pounds because of "misinformation". If you're a 5'6 woman and you're at 200 pounds...then 220....then 250....then 260, wouldn't you think at some point common sense would kick in and you wouldn't keep thinking "hey they said this food was good for me, so i'll keep eating it even though i'm 150 pounds overweight now". People might not know how to be in peak physical shape, have washboard abs and muscles etc, but people know how to NOT be obese.

That's the main problem, people just wanna make excuses for it and blame everything BUT a lack of effort. Food companies, technology, TV, genetics, their schedule....sometimes there really IS a legit disorder or something at work, but the fact is 95 times out of 100, it's a lack of effort.
This.

Had enough of morons excusing inexcusable behaviour merely because they have some misconceived notion that the government should be protecting everybody from themselves/ telling them what to do.

[Dresta]

Because the cigarettes makes her just that much more hideous. Let me guess, you're a smoker yourself? Yeah well, to each their own, but many of us feel smoking is an acutely unattractively trait to possess.
Because you have been brainwashed by the man.

And i don't give a shit what some dude thinks about it, it's never appeared to hurt on the female front, and that is all i give a shit about.

[Dresta]

A lot of the time that does apply, but again, there are differences in people's body morphology. I know people that are equally as lazy as it pertains to their diet and exercise, yet they still look skinny. They can get away with it, whereas a naturally heavy set person eats the exact same way and he is morbidly obese. That's genetics and has ziltch to do with work ethic.

The problem is the perception is that fat people are lazy and skinny people work hard, when that's not always the case. I've been skinny my whole life. In years past, I would really pig out to gain fat, I mean fast food every day, sometimes multiple times a day, and people would still say I look skinny. Whereas someone else would eat the same way and be 300 pounds.
That's a massive load of bullcrap with a tiny grain of truth to it. Stop excusing the fatsos, otherwise they'll start trying to get benefits for being fat.

[tomtucker]

fat people should be killed

[KNOW1EDGE]

ask people who aren't fat "is being fat attractive or un-attractive"

Id bet my left testicle that the majority of those people would find it un-attractive.

Ask people who don't smoke "is smoking attractive or un-attractive?"

Id bet my right testicle the majority of those people would find it un-attractive.

Fat smokers, very un-attractive to us fit, non-smokers.

[Dresta]

ask people who aren't fat "is being fat attractive or un-attractive"

Id bet my left testicle that the majority of those people would find it un-attractive.

Ask people who don't smoke "is smoking attractive or un-attractive?"

Id bet my right testicle the majority of those people would find it un-attractive.

Fat smokers, very un-attractive to us fit, non-smokers.
Bullshit. Especially in the case of women: even if they said no, most of them really mean yes.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Bullshit. Especially in the case of women: even if they said no, most of them really mean yes.

I literally just LOLd

You are a smoker, that's fine. More power to you if you want to stink, have yellow teeth and have a shortened life-span all for a "buzz"

Smoking is extremely un-attractive to those of us who don't smoke. It stinks, it can give US cancer, it makes your teeth yellow and it costs YOU money that could be spent on better things.

If you don't believe me, go take a poll, if you choose to not believe the people who tell you it is un-attractive and think they are lying, then God bless you my stinky friend

[WayOfWade]

To not be fat, it's not all about your diet, it's about your physical activity too. Take me for instance, I eat what I want, when I want, quite often; mainly junk food like Oreos, Reese's, Goldfish, and all manner of fast foods. Despite all this, I only weigh 145 lbs (6'0"), mainly because I always do something physical everyday. Personally, I play basketball for a minimum of one hour everyday, be it by myself or with friends, and among with that is all my Ultimate Frisbee practice/conditioning, and trips to the gym. I'm not ripped by any means (I'd have to eat healthy for that), but I'm in good shape and never gain weight. "It's not the hours you put in, it's what you out in the hours." - Kevin Durant

[Dresta]

I literally just LOLd

You are a smoker, that's fine. More power to you if you want to stink, have yellow teeth and have a shortened life-span all for a "buzz"

Smoking is extremely un-attractive to those of us who don't smoke. It stinks, it can give US cancer, it makes your teeth yellow and it costs YOU money that could be spent on better things.

If you don't believe me, go take a poll, if you choose to not believe the people who tell you it is un-attractive and think they are lying, then God bless you my stinky friend
No it can't, the evidence for that is about as thin as a bit of dead skin. Believe in politicised 'science' if you want to, but i know a whole lot more about it than you do. My teeth aren't yellow (ever heard of getting them cleaned?) and no, there isn't anything that mimics the effects of a cigarette (lol @ your hopelessly ignorant reducing of it to a 'buzz').

You clearly don't understand women very well. They may say no, but attraction bypasses the rational part of the brain. It is why smoking areas in clubs are always one of the easiest places to pick up girls, and they are always full of non-smokers trying to blag ****. (i sell them for a pound, and many actually buy haha)

Anyway just searched and this lol: http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/relationships/Smoking-245773.html

If you are reasonably attractive then obviously it goes that much further. But it is bullshit to say that women find smoking in men unattractive.

Anyway, 3 'it stinks' - what is your beef bro? Lots of things smell, but this one stinks x3!

[KNOW1EDGE]

You are a smoker, I get it.

It is pointless, and a waste of money. Smoking cigarettes offers nothing tangible, it does not give you any benefits(besides social, but i dont need a smoke to be social)It gives you a buzz, and apparently gives you a feeling that nothing else can match. It does yellow your teeth, I have heard of whitening. It can give you cancer, and it can, and HAS given other people cancer through 2nd hand smoke. This isn't a new phenomenon and its not debatable.

It does stink, and lots of other thing stink to, I, like most people, try to avoid stinky things.

I love it when smokers try to defend why they smoke. It cracks me up. Smart people don't smoke cigs, because it does not make their life better in any way, it only shortens their life span, yellows their teeth, wastes their money and makes them stink. MORE POWER TO YOU SMOKEY McSMOKERSON. :cheers:

[LJJ]

I look at it as a lack of self respect, to allow yourself to look like that by having no self restraint. Just weak minded individuals who let laziness and desires get the better of their judgement give up on theirselves

To be honest I still don't get it. Maybe I lack empathy but I feel like you have to go so far down the rabbit hole to actually become fat. You basically have to continue your gluttonous, no excersize life for years to actually become fat while having the opportunity to correct yourself at any time.

[Dresta]

You are a smoker, I get it.

It is pointless, and a waste of money. Smoking cigarettes offers nothing tangible, it does not give you any benefits(besides social, but i dont need a smoke to be social)It gives you a buzz, and apparently gives you a feeling that nothing else can match. It does yellow your teeth, I have heard of whitening. It can give you cancer, and it can, and HAS given other people cancer through 2nd hand smoke. This isn't a new phenomenon and its not debatable.

It does stink, and lots of other thing stink to, I, like most people, try to avoid stinky things.

I love it when smokers try to defend why they smoke. It cracks me up. Smart people don't smoke cigs, because it does not make their life better in any way, it only shortens their life span, yellows their teeth, wastes their money and makes them stink. MORE POWER TO YOU SMOKEY McSMOKERSON. :cheers:
This has nothing to do with me being a smoker, it has to do with you being an ignorant loud mouth that thinks he's superior because he doesn't smoke :roll: . The amount of mediocre, literal-minded tools that think this is remarkable (i guess mediocre people need something to make them feel better about themselves). But, i can assure you, none of you are more intelligent than Einstein, who was a heavy smoker:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/1502358/Einstein-eccentric-genius-smoked-butts-picked-up-off-street.html

Or Bertrand Russell, or countless other geniuses who smoked. But yeh: smart people don't smoke - idiot.

It offers nothing tangible? Well it effects the brain in several ways, so how is that not tangible? It is like saying that drinking offers nothing tangible or non-procreational sex offers nothing tangible. It is a nothing argument in other words.

I guarantee you second hand smoke harm is very debatable and i know it isn't new (the nazis were the last to promulgate the 2nd hand smoke myth because, you know, Hitler was a raging anti-smoking fanatic). I suggest you read this book and inform yourself: (a review of it)

http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artsullum.html

That is if you can actually read any book.

You said women find smoking unattractive, you were wrong:

'only 22 per cent women find men less attractive if they smoke.

It appears that women like a bit of a bad boy when it comes to men, as 63 per cent of us find men more attractive if they smoke, compared to the 18 per cent of men that find women more attractive for smoking.'

And it isn't something they like to admit these days with all the hatred going around.

[tomtucker]

ask people who aren't fat "is being fat attractive or un-attractive"

Id bet my left testicle that the majority of those people would find it un-attractive.

Ask people who don't smoke "is smoking attractive or un-attractive?"

Id bet my right testicle the majority of those people would find it un-attractive.

Fat smokers, very un-attractive to us fit, non-smokers.

:applause: if all those bastards were killed and burned, the whole US would lift 10 feet higher off of sea level

[Swaggin916]

^^^ In regards to this post and the OP... Looking down on people who are fat, who smoke, who have mental issues, are all ways to boost one's ego. Most of us are very mediocre at best so these people give us reason to feel good about ourselves. People should actually be thankful for them because without them inferiority complexes would run rampant.

I used to look down on people who had those issues I mentioned above and others as well, but now I don't at all. It's not just about growing up either because many people continue that kind of behavior throughout their lives never really realizing I don't think how petty it is. Everybody has their issues just leave em alone.

[LJJ]

I guarantee you second hand smoke harm is very debatable and i know it isn't new (the nazis were the last to promulgate the 2nd hand smoke myth because, you know, Hitler was a raging anti-smoking fanatic). I suggest you read this book and inform yourself: (a review of it) I suggest you read this book and inform yourself: (a review of it)

http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artsullum.html

I suggest the main basis for you "passive smoking isn't harmful" argument should be something other than a book from an engineer turned politician.

There is a lot of contemporary scientific research on this subject, and the vast majority of it concludes that passive smoking is a significant health risk. Name dropping Hitler isn't going to change those facts.

[KNOW1EDGE]

You said women find smoking unattractive, you were wrong:

'only 22 per cent women find men less attractive if they smoke.
.

"You said women find smoking un-attractive, nuh-uh, 22% of women find it un-attractive"

God damn it you got me.

You say im wrong, and then give proof that I am right, and you think you are smart and proved your point? Holy f*ck dude. :lol

I have smoked cigs, I used to smoke weed every day for nearly 6 years straight. Neither of those things have helped me whatsoever. Smoking is not an admirable trait. If you think smoking cigs will help you get girls, then you are looking for the wrong girls, and you should try and improve your personality to get girls, not smoke a death stick.

Carry on.

[Dresta]

I suggest the main basis for you "passive smoking isn't harmful" argument should be something other than a book from an engineer turned politician.

There is a lot of contemporary scientific research on this subject, and the vast majority of it concludes that passive smoking is a significant health risk. Name dropping Hitler isn't going to change those facts.
Except that guy (i don't know who he is) only wrote the review, not the book. If you actually took the time to read the book you would see that he goes through a number of studies, shows how those who try to publish studies showing no relationship get persecuted and attacked by the health fanatics, and plenty of other things.

Politicised scientific research is not worth anything. Both my parents are scientists, what do you know other than what you've been told and a bunch of studies of which you've merely accepted the conclusions and not examined the epidemiology.


"You said women find smoking un-attractive, nuh-uh, 22% of women find it un-attractive"

God damn it you got me.

You say im wrong, and then give proof that I am right, and you think you are smart and proved your point? Holy f*ck dude. :lol

I have smoked cigs, I used to smoke weed every day for nearly 6 years straight. Neither of those things have helped me whatsoever. Smoking is not an admirable trait. If you think smoking cigs will help you get girls, then you are looking for the wrong girls, and you should try and improve your personality to get girls, not smoke a death stick.

Carry on.Damn, you really can't read. It also said almost 3x that amount find it attractive, so how does that prove you are right. By anyone's estimation that is a net gain. Are you ****ing retarded or something?

Then you try and switch it around on me and make it look like i am bigging up smoking and saying everyone should do it. It suits some, not others. It helps some, not others. Some guy said it was unattractive, i merely said that women find it attractive. I don't smoke to get girls, i was merely rebutting the ignorance and hatred of others (like you).

God you're pathetic: you don't bother to answer anything i said and, then try to twist it round to make me look like i said a bunch of idiotic things i would never say, and never came close to saying.

I really don't give a shit what you have done, it is completely irrelevant to me and my life. No cigarette can kill, so why call it a 'death stick' unless you want to come across as some kind of hyperbolical bellend.

edit: God the sanctimony of people like you is cloying. 'oh i used to smoke so i know for sure that it's bad and not worth anyone's time or money. Well, if morons like you didn't exist smoking would be cheap like it should be.

[Hoodlum Science]

dont know as much about science as a lot of you experts, but based on the anecdotal evidence provided by the posters in this thread there appears to be a strong link between diet soda intake and douchebaggery

So in other words both you and DeuceWallaces gulp down gallons and gallons of this so-called douchebaggery juice.

:oldlol:

Make absolutely no mistake about it - DeuceWallaces has forever and a day been a royal prick around these parts while everyone has pretty much just adapted and learned to co-exist with his douchbaggery bullshit.l

... and as far as you go, yeah well, you think your shit doesn't stink and all the while you endlessly post (more like spew) your garbage on some high-horse extreme liberal from cornfield country and in your own mind thinking this makes you some special exception to the typical population and thus "hey I'm a progressive! thinker!" ...

Real talk dough, you're just annoying as ****. Most wish you'd just STFU and pipe down with your continuous ***-loving, tree-hugging, smell-your-own-farts (South Park "smug" reference) hybrid driving piece of shit preaching.

You think you're educating folks here, when truth be told, more often than not (and you clearly didn't even realize this, otherwise YOU WOULD have already "piped down") people are rolling their eyes when you create one of your "progressive" threads or supposedly "sharp tongue" comments where you diss someone for no reason other than you simply not liking said poster. You're rude as hell, and add on top of that you honestly think you're more intelligent, classy, and humanly worthy of your existence than most other posters (people) and it all adds up to a snotty sure-of-himself annoying as all hell dude, who's drowning in this so-called douchebaggery you speak of.

:rolleyes:

You wouldn't even be all that bad of a poster if you'd stop being such a jerk to people. I suppose Insidehoops is the place you come to vent from the outside world. You treat fellow posters here as if they're your personal punching bag, a place where you can come to make yourself feel better at the expense of putting others down. Congratulations Nanners - you da man!

:cheers:

[b1imtf]

You are a smoker, I get it.

It is pointless, and a waste of money. Smoking cigarettes offers nothing tangible, it does not give you any benefits(besides social, but i dont need a smoke to be social)It gives you a buzz, and apparently gives you a feeling that nothing else can match. It does yellow your teeth, I have heard of whitening. It can give you cancer, and it can, and HAS given other people cancer through 2nd hand smoke. This isn't a new phenomenon and its not debatable.

It does stink, and lots of other thing stink to, I, like most people, try to avoid stinky things.

I love it when smokers try to defend why they smoke. It cracks me up. Smart people don't smoke cigs, because it does not make their life better in any way, it only shortens their life span, yellows their teeth, wastes their money and makes them stink. MORE POWER TO YOU SMOKEY McSMOKERSON. :cheers:
Smoking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believing in god

[Lakers Legend#32]

When it comes to obseity, the South is a frickin' whale colony.

[KNOW1EDGE]

"No cigarette can kill"

It says right on the f*cking box.

You are moronic. Cigarettes do not make anyones life better. You may find comfort in your addiction, that's fine. You are wasting your money. Smart people don't waste their money. IMO

rock on doe :rockon:

[LJJ]

Except that guy (i don't know who he is) only wrote the review, not the book. If you actually took the time to read the book you would see that he goes through a number of studies, shows how those who try to publish studies showing no relationship get persecuted and attacked by the health fanatics, and plenty of other things.

Politicised scientific research is not worth anything. Both my parents are scientists, what do you know other than what you've been told and a bunch of studies of which you've merely accepted the conclusions and not examined the epidemiology.

The scientific support for the harm of passive smoking is broad based, reaches an overwhelming consensus and comes from a multitude of different sources. Regardless of what you think the "scientific community" is not one homogenuous organisation who conspire to spread false information.

The research that downplays the harm comes overwhelmingy from a single source: tobacco-industry funded "research".

Weak arguments like "my parents are scientists, trust me", "Hitler was anti-smoking" and "you didn't study this" really aren't going to get you anywhere. The scientific research on the health risks of smoking lacking credibility and being "politicized research" is a conspiracy theory funded by the tobacco industry.

[b1imtf]

"No cigarette can kill"

It says right on the f*cking box.

You are moronic. Cigarettes do not make anyones life better. You may find comfort in your addiction, that's fine. You are wasting your money. Smart people don't waste their money. IMO

rock on doe :rockon:
Ever since I started smoking, I've always said "I wish I didn't". It's hard to stop, especially since I do it because I like it not to fit in.. I'm the only smoker in my group

[KNOW1EDGE]

Ever since I started smoking, I've always said "I wish I didn't". It's hard to stop, especially since I do it because I like it not to fit in.. I'm the only smoker in my group

Literally ALL of my friends who smoke cigarettes CONTINUOUSLY talk about wanting to quit, because they are smart enough to realize it is bad for their health, it costs them money, it makes them smell, and their parents/loved ones don't want them to do it. I have friends who were able to successfully quit, and others who simply talk about quitting but never put forth a real effort.

I am not bothered by anyone smoking cigs, its their choice, just don't do it around me. But don't lie to your self and say its not bad for you, its not a waste of money and people don't find it un-attractive. Nobody is buying that nonsense.

Quitting is hard, I got a LOT of respect for anyone who acknowledges the need for change, and is able to successfully quit. :cheers:

[Dresta]

The scientific support for the harm of passive smoking is broad based, reaches an overwhelming consensus and comes from a multitude of different sources. Regardless of what you think the "scientific community" is not one homogenuous organisation who conspire to spread false information.

The research that downplays the harm comes overwhelmingy from a single source: tobacco-industry funded "research".

Weak arguments like "my parents are scientists, trust me", "Hitler was anti-smoking" and "you didn't study this" really aren't going to get you anywhere. The scientific research on the health risks of smoking lacking credibility and being "politicized research" is a conspiracy theory funded by the tobacco industry.
Those weren't 'arguments' they were simply asides.

I have spoken to many scientists about it, many agree the epidemiology on passive is woeful, and that most of the studies are merely extrapolated figures from scientifically insignificant deviations. And many take the attitude that the ends (stopping everyone from smoking) justify the means (lying and exaggerating as to the danger). I suggest you educate yourself as to the other side of the debate, and do some research on the matter before simply muttering inanities like 'broad based consensus' while having no actual argument yourself, or one you have thought out on your own. You are little more than a parrot.

Yes, that is the tactic used to generate this 'overwhelming' consensus: 'anything that disagrees with what we say is the unalterable truth is tobacco-industry propaganda.' Except because of tactics from people like this, it is exceedingly difficult to get funding from anywhere else. And where the funding comes from is irrelevant, it is the data that matters, and the anti-smoking fanatics have again and again been shown to manipulate data, exaggerate and outright lie:

e.g:

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/secondhand-smoke-charade

And a more detailed one by someone with no relation to any tobacco industry whatsoever:

http://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/

Think tanks can't have 1% of their funding from tobacco companies without them 'being in their pocket' - do you never wonder whose interests lie on the other side (i suggest you read that book). The 'war' on tobacco has so clearly been won, and these bans will never be repealed, so there is really no incentive at all to fund and make up studies (when no one has actually falsified them - just attacked the people who published them). The amount of smear campaigns run against any scientists willing to delve into the matter is disgraceful.

And watch the health-freaks move onto other things like Bloomberg et. al have already done.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Cigarettes have no negative side effects.

Nobody finds it un-attractive.

Cigarettes cant hurt you, they aren't addictive.

Proven science is wrong.

Smoking is an admirable trait. It makes you smell good and whitens your teeth.

Cigs are a good way to invest your money and can benefit your life in many ways.

The more you smoke, the longer you will live.

[Dresta]

Cigarettes have no negative side effects.

Nobody finds it un-attractive.

Cigarettes cant hurt you, they aren't addictive.

Proven science is wrong.

Smoking is an admirable trait. It makes you smell good and whitens your teeth.

Cigs are a good way to invest your money and can benefit your life in many ways.

The more you smoke, the longer you will live.
:facepalm

You're actually too stupid for words. I won't be replying to you again, it is a waste of time.

:sleeping

[KNOW1EDGE]

:facepalm

You're actually too stupid for words. I won't be replying to you again, it is a waste of time.

:sleeping

#butthurt

Smoke a cig and go to bed. You will be better off for it.

[LJJ]

And where the funding comes from is irrelevant, it is the data that matters, and the anti-smoking fanatics have again and again been shown to manipulate data, exaggerate and outright lie:

e.g:

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/secondhand-smoke-charade

And a more detailed one by someone with no relation to any tobacco industry whatsoever:

http://www.yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/


Ah, the Cato institute, the Koch Industries "think thank", and a random blog from a single doctor. Yep. Those are excellent sources.

The entire scientific epidemiological community is compromised of "ant

[ILLsmak]

Well, it is true that it costs more money to eat healthy.

I don't understand why people get fat, though. People don't always have the energy to exercise, though, but that's no reason to sit around eating ice cream all of the time.

Still, the amount of people in this country or world who are even moderately physically fit is pretty low, I'd say, unless their job calls for it.

-Smak

[rezznor]

not tryna hijack this thread but i was going through some of the old mbell threads. so much funny shit there :oldlol: i can't believe that was 4 years ago

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=157635

my personal favorite...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=157987&page=3
:oldlol: good times


we haven't had a proper roast in some time :(

[longhornfan1234]

We keep giving them food stamps and disability checks.

[Dresta]

[QUOTE=LJJ]Ah, the Cato institute, the Koch Industries "think thank", and a random blog from a single doctor. Yep. Those are excellent sources.

The entire scientific epidemiological community is compromised of "ant

[Myth]

Too bad she ain't skinny, you'd have a wife:(

Nah, even if she were hot, we have different religious values and general outlooks on life. She would still be best off as a good friend, but there would be a chance that I would have screwed that up if she were hot by trying to bang her.

[HarryCallahan]

Dresta with the ether.

[Myth]

so picky

I think people should be picky when looking for a spouse :confusedshrug:

On a day to day basis, we like to do different things. I know the religious part makes it look like I'm discriminating based on her beliefs, but it is actually the role it plays in our daily lives. We really wouldn't make that great of a fit. If your best friend suddenly became an attractive female, does that automatically make that person the best spouse? Hell, I've lived with my best friend and he didn't even make the best roommate I've had.

[KNOW1EDGE]

what does it say about cigs on the box??

does it have any written warnings??

[HarryCallahan]

what does it say about cigs on the box??

does it have any written warnings??

Do yourself a favour and get out of the thread bro.
If you haven't already figured out that he was arguing the semantics of calling a cig "a death stick" because " No cigarette can kill, so why call it a 'death stick'?" than you're out of your depth buddy.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Do yourself a favor and get out of the thread bro.
If you haven't already figured out that he was arguing the semantics of calling a cig "a death stick" because " No cigarette can kill, so why call it a 'death stick'?" then you're out of your depth buddy.

fixed.

and you didn't address my question. -what are the warnings on the side of the box?

Smokey is arguing the fact that cigarettes are bad for you. Kind of moronic if you ask me.

And im not the first person in the world to refer to a cig as a "death stick"
it is shaped like a stick, and can lead to death, seems to fit.

[HarryCallahan]

fixed.

and you didn't address my question. -what are the warnings on the side of the box?

Smokey is arguing the fact that cigarettes are bad for you. Kind of moronic if you ask me.

And im not the first person in the world to refer to a cig as a "death stick"
it is shaped like a stick, and can lead to death, seems to fit.

WOW!!! You're so damn emotional (and very obviously aware that you've been ETHERED) that you bothered to correct two obvious typo's (not spelling errors).

Dresta, is arguing the legitimacy of the reported dangers of second hand smoking, not trying to argue whether or not smoking is bad for you.

And that last paragraph proves that you STILL don't understand what he was doing, so I'll spell it out for you.
Dresta, was arguing the semantic point of you calling a cigarette (singular) a "death stick," because no has ever died for smoking one cigarette. It was a more clever way of correcting your spelling and saying "fixed" or "fify" (like you did).


Like I said buddy, leave this thread because you are looking stupider and more desperate with each post.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Cigs are bad for you. That's my point. Carry on.

[HarryCallahan]

Cigs are bad for you. That's my point. Carry on.

No ones disagreeing with that. You still keep appearing more and more foolish...

[KNOW1EDGE]

No ones disagreeing with that. You still keep appearing more and more foolish...

You are entitled to your opinion. Thanks for sharing.

Others might think you are looking more and more foolish.

[bmulls]

Are we really debating whether or not cigarettes are bad for you?

[KNOW1EDGE]

Are we really debating whether or not cigarettes are bad for you?

Apparently. And apparently I got "ethered"

[HarryCallahan]

Are we really debating whether or not cigarettes are bad for you?


Apparently. And apparently I got "ethered"

Are you two too fvckin' stupid to read? No one has said smoking isn't bad for you.

And son, you got ethered pretty hard.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Are you two too fvckin' stupid to read? No one has said smoking isn't bad for you.

And son, you got ethered pretty hard.

Ok you got me.

No one has been arguing science, no one has been saying it doesn't cause cancer, no one has said it doesn't yellow your teeth, no one has said there is no such thing as 2nd hand smoke, no one has said non-smokers DONT find it un-attractive, no one has been defending smokers, I made all that up, I am wrong, you are right. I got ethered, im your son. :bowdown:

[HarryCallahan]

Ok you got me.

No one has been arguing science, no one has been saying it doesn't cause cancer, no one has said it doesn't yellow your teeth, no one has said there is no such thing as 2nd hand smoke, no one has said non-smokers DONT find it un-attractive, no one has been defending smokers, I made all that up, I am wrong, you are right. I got ethered, im your son. :bowdown:

The bolded is the only thing that Dresta actually did argue, and he provided some evidence to support his claim (evidence that you misread because you are obviously illiterate or lazy, or both).

If you're so confident Dresta said all those things, then you won't mind going back a couple of pages and quoting where he said it? Seems pretty simple.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Your a big boy, you can look though the thread and actually read it.

Dresta argued the validity of second hand smoke, said Hitler "made it up"
He said he didn't care about the smell, smoking cigs helped him get girls. I told him it made his teeth yellow and he came back with "have you ever heard of teeth whitening?"

I really don't care what you think of me, or if you think people were defending smoking cigarettes or not. If you can read you can clearly see people were defending smoking, saying its not proven to cause cancer(which it is)saying that second hand smoke is made up(which its not) etc etc

My only point in commenting on cigs, was to say, its a waste of time and money, and it only harms you and those around you. People argued that point, I stated my opinion, others shared their opinion, let it be homie, don't catch feelings in an online forum made for sharing ones opinion. :confusedshrug:

[HarryCallahan]

Your a big boy, you can look though the thread and actually read it.

Dresta argued the validity of second hand smoke, said Hitler "made it up"
He said he didn't care about the smell, smoking cigs helped him get girls. I told him it made his teeth yellow and he came back with "have you ever heard of teeth whitening?"

I really don't care what you think of me, or if you think people were defending smoking cigarettes or not. If you can read you can clearly see people were defending smoking, saying its not proven to cause cancer(which it is)saying that second hand smoke is made up(which its not) etc etc

My only point in commenting on cigs, was to say, its a waste of time and money, and it only harms you and those around you. People argued that point, I stated my opinion, others shared their opinion, let it be homie, don't catch feelings in an online forum made for sharing ones opinion. :confusedshrug:

I've read through the entire thread several times, and you're either lying or too stupid to understand what you're reading.

At no point did he say it isn't proven to cause cancer, and at no point did he say "second hand smoke is made up, or say that "Hitler made it up." He did argue the validity of the widely held notion that second hand smoke causes cancer, and he provided a LOT if evidence to back it up.

As for the whole "catching feelings" part, why would I be hurt about you lying about another poster? I just find it hilarious how you keep making sh!t up, not reading posts not understanding other posts, getting called out on it and then doing a poor job of defending yourself.
Oh, and also those posts you made where you sarcastically agreed with straw-man arguments and then corrected two typos were HILLARIOUS.

[KNOW1EDGE]

you got me again. I was just ethered again :bowdown:

Im sharing my opinion in an online forum intended for people to do so.

Im not lying about anything anyone said, im sorry you came late to the conversation. If you read the thread, you will understand. saying you find me hilarious, or im a liar, etc etc doesn't prove your point. Im not sure if you even have a point or an opinion to share other then you don't like me.lol

Once again, my point is, smoking cigs are bad. That's it, I don't care to debate with you about who said what, if I got ethered, or what ever else it is you are trying to prove. My sole intention in posting was to get my point across. I think I did that. Whats your point? -im a liar? im dumb? im hilarious? I cant read? You're a clown.

[HarryCallahan]

you got me again. I was just ethered again :bowdown:

Im sharing my opinion in an online forum intended for people to do so.

Im not lying about anything anyone said, im sorry you came late to the conversation. If you read the thread, you will understand. saying you find me hilarious, or im a liar, etc etc doesn't prove your point. Im not sure if you even have a point or an opinion to share other then you don't like me.lol

Once again, my point is, smoking cigs are bad. That's it, I don't care to debate with you about who said what, if I got ethered, or what ever else it is you are trying to prove. My sole intention in posting was to get my point across. I think I did that. Whats your point? -im a liar? im dumb? im hilarious? I cant read? You're a clown.

Came late to the conversation, arrogant little sh!t? I posted on the second fvcking page retard, post #19


So you made a thread about seeing an obese person? I get it if she was sitting next to you on a flight, but you only saw her, just look away you little b!tch.

And as I said in my last post:

I've read through the entire thread several times

But I forgot you can't read and or are a liar, so I guess that doesn't matter much...

And if you don't wanna "debate over who said what," then you shouldn't falsely attribute certain straw-man arguments to absentee posters...

Remember when I told you to stop posting? You should've taken my advice, because you keep posting falsehood after falsehood and you keep making a bigger ass out of yourself.

[Dresta]

I've read through the entire thread several times, and you're either lying or too stupid to understand what you're reading.

At no point did he say it isn't proven to cause cancer, and at no point did he say "second hand smoke is made up, or say that "Hitler made it up." He did argue the validity of the widely held notion that second hand smoke causes cancer, and he provided a LOT if evidence to back it up.

As for the whole "catching feelings" part, why would I be hurt about you lying about another poster? I just find it hilarious how you keep making sh!t up, not reading posts not understanding other posts, getting called out on it and then doing a poor job of defending yourself.
Oh, and also those posts you made where you sarcastically agreed with straw-man arguments and then corrected two typos were HILLARIOUS.
I really wouldn't bother with this guy man. It is a waste of time trying to discuss something on a forum with someone who has proven himself incapable of reading again and again. I tried a few times but every single time it was as if i'd written something completely different from what i actually did.

e.g. what i actually wrote about Hitler:



I guarantee you second hand smoke harm is very debatable and i know it isn't new (the nazis were the last to promulgate the 2nd hand smoke myth because, you know, Hitler was a raging anti-smoking fanatic). .So i was actually just responding to him saying it was new, and it had no relation to my argument whatsoever (so why does he - and that other guy - keep obsessing about it? oh yeh, because they have no valid counter-arguments so they have to resort to distorting mine: pathetic).




Once again, my point is, smoking cigs are bad. That's it, I don't care to debate with you about who said what, if I got ethered, or what ever else it is you are trying to prove. My sole intention in posting was to get my point across. I think I did that. Whats your point? -im a liar? im dumb? im hilarious? I cant read? You're a clown.
Was that it, was it really?


I literally just LOLd

You are a smoker, that's fine. More power to you if you want to stink, have yellow teeth and have a shortened life-span all for a "buzz"

Smoking is extremely un-attractive to those of us who don't smoke. It stinks, it can give US cancer, it makes your teeth yellow and it costs YOU money that could be spent on better things.




You are a smoker, I get it.

It is pointless, and a waste of money. Smoking cigarettes offers nothing tangible, it does not give you any benefits(besides social, but i dont need a smoke to be social)It gives you a buzz, and apparently gives you a feeling that nothing else can match. It does yellow your teeth, I have heard of whitening. It can give you cancer, and it can, and HAS given other people cancer through 2nd hand smoke. This isn't a new phenomenon and its not debatable.

It does stink, and lots of other thing stink to, I, like most people, try to avoid stinky things.

I love it when smokers try to defend why they smoke. It cracks me up. Smart people don't smoke cigs, because it does not make their life better in any way, it only shortens their life span, yellows their teeth, wastes their money and makes them stink. MORE POWER TO YOU SMOKEY McSMOKERSON. :cheers:

That was all you said was it then? If you had merely said smoking is bad for your health then you would have found no one disagreeing, but instead you found the need to denigrate everyone who thinks differently and has a different view as to the value derived from smoking than yourself.

I assure you, if smoking had no utility, then no one would do it. It takes a good while to get properly addicted to smoking and i would have thought (with you being a smoker for 6 years and all) that you would actually know that. People don't quit smoking for the large part because they don't want to quit, if they really wanted to, then they would do it (because no, it isn't some magic drug that is literally impossible to give up and enslaves all who take a puff for life).

You have been lying left, right and centre in this thread, and no one cares about your invalid and baseless opinions - so go away and learn how to ****ing read.

[KNOW1EDGE]

:applause:

I never said I smoked cigs for 6 years, I said I smoked weed for 6 years. And im the liar who doesn't know how to read? :oldlol:

I have shared my opinion and my point of view. How is my opinion a lie? You and your boyfriend are ridiculous.

Ill say it again: Smoking cigs is stupid, it does not help you be a better person or get you any where in life. It wastes your time and money. It makes you and your breath smell bad, many non-smokers find it un-attractive, it can and DOES lead to cancer(whether you believe it or not)and second hand smoke can kill those around you.

No one is trying to put you down or make you feel bad.

Real question, why do you smoke? Does smoking make your life better or worse? Ever considered quitting?

[HarryCallahan]

Once again, my point is, smoking cigs are bad.

You're actual first post in this thread:


ask people who aren't fat "is being fat attractive or un-attractive"

Id bet my left testicle that the majority of those people would find it un-attractive.

Ask people who don't smoke "is smoking attractive or un-attractive?"

Id bet my right testicle the majority of those people would find it un-attractive.

Fat smokers, very un-attractive to us fit, non-smokers.

So you even lie about your own posts...

[KNOW1EDGE]

You're actual first post in this thread:



So you even lie about your own posts...


That was my first post, addressing the FACT that being obese, and smoking cigs, is universally un-attractive to MOST non-smokers and non-fat people. You gonna argue that?

How does that make me a liar? Because I said my point is, smoking cigs is bad. The fact that it is frowned upon and un-attractive is "bad" in my opinion.

You are calling me a liar for sharing my opinion. I have a point to be in this thread, I am sharing my opinion.

Im not sure you have shared your opinion, im not sure you have a reason in this thread other than your obsession with me.

God bless you. I am over it, I don't feel the need to go back and forth with you, and I don't need to have the last word. Until you share an actual opinion of your own, im done responding to your clownish behavior. :bowdown:

[RidonKs]

obesity is a really thorny problem for your personal life... i've actually lost a friend as a result of pointing out the elephant in the room (literally). i thought i was being straightforward and saving us the trouble of awkwardness but in reality and hindsight i was acting like a total asshole and running an already strained friendship straight into the ground. i've only spoken with her once or twice in the past year or two, just briefly. im still really sore about it because she's a fantastic person, bright funny interesting to talk to, etc. i still get this empty feeling in the pit of my stomach just thinking about it. sigh

verrrry delicate issue. and for the public too. on the one hand the fat shamers are right, these people need to understand that they aren't cursed, they're just unhealthy and it's up to them to (generally speaking of course). on the other hand, a culture that too freely stigmatizes such an obvious characteristic will more than likely only exacerbate the problem i think.... i dunno

[Dresta]

:applause:

I never said I smoked cigs for 6 years, I said I smoked weed for 6 years. And im the liar who doesn't know how to read? :oldlol:

I have shared my opinion and my point of view. How is my opinion a lie? You and your boyfriend are ridiculous.

Ill say it again: Smoking cigs is stupid, it does not help you be a better person or get you any where in life. It wastes your time and money. It makes you and your breath smell bad, many non-smokers find it un-attractive, it can and DOES lead to cancer(whether you believe it or not)and second hand smoke can kill those around you.

No one is trying to put you down or make you feel bad.

Real question, why do you smoke? Does smoking make your life better or worse? Ever considered quitting?lol, because someone else can't put up with your constant misreadings and misrepresentations they are my 'boyfriend' - could you prove the point i've been making about you any better than that? Not really.

It takes years of chronic smoking to even garner an increased risk of anything, and yet you think the far more dilute smoke magically 'kills those around you' - just think about that for one second. If you have ever smoked (which you claim you have) you would know there is a world of difference between taking a toke on a cigarette and being in a smoky room. In fact they put detectors on people who worked in smoking joints, and it turned out in total they were exposed to the equivalent amount of smoke from smoking less than 10 cigarettes in a year.

Oh, and my bad, you actually said this: 'I have smoked cigs, I used to smoke weed every day for nearly 6 years straight. Neither of those things have helped me whatsoever.' - i obviously inferred differently because your smoking weed has nothing to do with anything and you have been talking like such an expert on smoking. The way you said 'neither' of them also implied that you did them at the same time (which would make sense because i smoke joints with backi in, as to most people in the UK).

And to answer your 'real' question as to what do i gain from smoking, well: it helps me keep working when i want to stop, it enhances cognitive functioning, it keeps me entertained when i am bored, it relaxes me when i am stressed, it wakes me up in the morning, it helps me to stave off hunger, it helps my digestion, and it pisses off health fanatics. Is that not enough? If i didn't get anything out of it, then i wouldn't bloody do it. Many very intelligent people have found utility in smoking - this is a fact, and completely overrides your ridiculous and unfounded opinion that 'smokers are stupid.

The most narrow-minded and prejudiced people from my experience always tend to be non-smokers, and in particular non-smokers who think not smoking makes them superior in some way, so smoking also helps me weed out these morons and avoid them like the plague.

[HarryCallahan]

That was my first post, addressing the FACT that being obese, and smoking cigs, is universally un-attractive to MOST non-smokers and non-fat people. You gonna argue that?

How does that make me a liar? Because I said my point is, smoking cigs is bad. The fact that it is frowned upon and un-attractive is "bad" in my opinion.

You are calling me a liar for sharing my opinion. I have a point to be in this thread, I am sharing my opinion.

Im not sure you have shared your opinion, im not sure you have a reason in this thread other than your obsession with me.

God bless you. I am over it, I don't feel the need to go back and forth with you, and I don't need to have the last word. Until you share an actual opinion of your own, im done responding to your clownish behavior. :bowdown:

It makes you a liar because you said the reason you came into the thread is to say that smoking is bad for your health. The truth is you came into this thread to say smoking makes you less attractive. Do you not see that you were being untruthful?

Like I said, I've been posting in this thread longer than you (by three pages). Hell, you aren't even the first argument I've had in this thread, that was goldrush.

I have shared many opinions in this thread, you just have trouble reading, which is okay. Here's a quote from you acknowledging the fact I've shared opinions in this thread:


You are entitled to your opinion. Thanks for sharing.


So another lie...

As for me being "clownish," i'd say that misrepresenting what people say, attacking straw-men, correcting typo's and not heeding my advice to leave earlier is the "clownish" behaviour.

[RidonKs]

hey what's this book you're talking about dresta?

my understanding was that 'third hand smoke' -- breathing in the smoke clinging to second hand smokers -- was just substantially verified, at least to a limited extent, just a few years ago...

it's pretty rare you hear anybody take exception to the second hand smoke thesis these days.

[Dresta]

obesity is a really thorny problem for your personal life... i've actually lost a friend as a result of pointing out the elephant in the room (literally). i thought i was being straightforward and saving us the trouble of awkwardness but in reality and hindsight i was acting like a total asshole and running an already strained friendship straight into the ground. i've only spoken with her once or twice in the past year or two, just briefly. im still really sore about it because she's a fantastic person, bright funny interesting to talk to, etc. i still get this empty feeling in the pit of my stomach just thinking about it. sigh

verrrry delicate issue. and for the public too. on the one hand the fat shamers are right, these people need to understand that they aren't cursed, they're just unhealthy and it's up to them to (generally speaking of course). on the other hand, a culture that too freely stigmatizes such an obvious characteristic will more than likely only exacerbate the problem i think.... i dunnoYou are right that it often makes things worse.

'someone called me fat'

'response: stuff my face to make myself feel better'



That was my first post, addressing the FACT that being obese, and smoking cigs, is universally un-attractive to MOST non-smokers and non-fat people. You gonna argue that?

How does that make me a liar? Because I said my point is, smoking cigs is bad. The fact that it is frowned upon and un-attractive is "bad" in my opinion.

You are calling me a liar for sharing my opinion. I have a point to be in this thread, I am sharing my opinion.

Im not sure you have shared your opinion, im not sure you have a reason in this thread other than your obsession with me.

God bless you. I am over it, I don't feel the need to go back and forth with you, and I don't need to have the last word. Until you share an actual opinion of your own, im done responding to your clownish behavior. :bowdown:No one could argue against that, because it is a nonsensical sentence in the first place. Something can't 'universally' affect 'most' people. :banghead:

If you don't know what you're talking about, then keep your uninformed opinion to yourself. Just because something is your opinion doesn't grant it any validity, why can't you grasp that?

[HarryCallahan]

Ridonks, you should never tell a girl she's fat. No matter how big she is or level-headed she may seem, in my experience- no woman will take it the right way. Unless you're Oprah, Dr. Oz or Dr. Drew.

[Jameerthefear]

Smoking is gross, and I wish it was illegal.

[HarryCallahan]

Smoking is gross, and I wish it was illegal.

That kind of attitude absolutely sickens me.
"I don't like something, so I think people should be locked in a cage with rapists, thieves and murderers for doing it."

I don't like the "music" of Drake, yet I don't go around trying to get people thrown in jail for listening to it.

I don't like creepy incestuous anime, yet i'm not trying to get you thrown in jail.

Really, think about what you're saying.

[Jameerthefear]

That kind of attitude absolutely sickens me.
"I don't like something, so I think people should be locked in a cage with rapists, thieves and murderers for doing it."

I don't like the "music" of Drake, yet I don't go around trying to get people thrown in jail for listening to it.

I don't like creepy incestuous anime, yet i'm not trying to get you thrown in jail.

Really, think about what you're saying.
Comparing smoking (takes lives everyday) to Drake and watching comedic anime? okay lol

[HarryCallahan]

Comparing smoking (takes lives everyday) to Drake and watching comedic anime? okay lol

OHHHH, so what your saying is that you want to rob people of their liberty, throw them in a cage with rapists, thieves and murderers for something that doesn't concern or harm you- for their own safety... I got ya buddy, makes sense...


THINK about what you're saying.

[Nanners]

OHHHH, so what your saying is that you want to rob people of their liberty, throw them in a cage with rapists, thieves and murderers for something that doesn't concern or harm you- for their own safety... I got ya buddy, makes sense...


THINK about what you're saying.

pretty sure nobody is saying that, you are kind of putting words in his mouth.

what they are saying is that we need to round up the smokers, place them into camps, and then eliminate them.

[Jameerthefear]

OHHHH, so what your saying is that you want to rob people of their liberty, throw them in a cage with rapists, thieves and murderers for something that doesn't concern or harm you- for their own safety... I got ya buddy, makes sense...


THINK about what you're saying.
what was even the point of bolding that part of my post? and way to overreact and put words in my mouth dude.

[Dresta]

hey what's this book you're talking about dresta?

my understanding was that 'third hand smoke' -- breathing in the smoke clinging to second hand smokers -- was just substantially verified, at least to a limited extent, just a few years ago...

it's pretty rare you hear anybody take exception to the second hand smoke thesis these days.
Does not that they have the audacity to purport something as absurd as 3rd hand smoke strike you as a little odd? Something is clearly not right there don't you think? If such incredibly tiny quantities were capable of causing cancer merely because they can be carcinogens at high doses, then everyone would be dropping dead of cancer by the age of 20. So many household products contain carcinogens, that does not mean if you breath a bit of it it can give you cancer.

Here is a good article on the absurdity of 3rd hand smoke:

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/02/thirdhand-smoke.html

Do you not see the direction this is heading in is to either ban smoking or to exclude smokers from society? It is like after each new measure comes in they say 'not enough people have quit, we'll have to crack down some more!'

These two i've read and they are very good at debunking many of the popular myths of second hand smoke:

http://www.amazon.com/For-Your-Own-Good-Anti-Smoking/dp/0684871157/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

http://www.amazon.com/Velvet-Glove-Iron-Fist-Anti-Smoking/dp/0956226507/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

There are others too, but i haven't read them, so wouldn't be able to recommend.

You are right in that the opposing argument is never heard, which is why everybody blindly accepts the conclusions of research they have never read into. I did it myself until i came to write my thesis on liberty and had a section on the smoking ban (because even using gvmt statistics, the risk of second hand smoke is considerably lower than that of simply going outside, catching a disease and dying - so i was arguing there is no justification for not allowing smoking areas at all). Then, when i actually read into it a little deeper, i saw how spurious and shady it all was, and i don't think the ban is justified even if it were harmful (people take much bigger risks everyday when they get in their cars).

Even someone like Peter Hitchens who supports the ban on the grounds that it gets people to quit (he is a conservative so doesn't mind regulating morality) say that the evidence for second hand smoke is very thin indeed:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/03/its-not-just-me.html

and

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/03/smoke-fails-to-clear.html

'There's been a lot of anger about this study, as there often is when science comes into conflict with intellectual fashion, and no doubt we'll have people commenting here about 'vast majorities' and 'deniers'. The use of such terms is always a sign that the scientific method has been abandoned, and other forces are in play. Scientific truth is not established by majority vote, opinion poll or current fashion. That would reduce it to the level of 'Britain's Got Talent', or, worse, a British general election. Scientists don't 'deny'. They prove or fail to prove, or disprove. Or they provide evidence which upsets the theories of others, and which those others must other accept or disprove.'

Scientists aren't even allowed to go against the grain on this issue or they will end up getting their funding cut, and if they lose their funding, they lose their jobs.

The whole thing is nauseating.


edit:


Comparing smoking (takes lives everyday) to Drake and watching comedic anime? okay lol
Sorry, but what does that have to do with you exactly? Booze and cars take lives everyday (frequently innocent and young lives as well - unlike smoking), but i don't go around demanding nobody drive a car, or that people only drink in their homes (or not at all in your case).

People who feel the need to regulate others behaviour seriously need to take a good look at themselves.

[GatorKid117]

One thing I love about China, no fat people. There are a few pudgy people but I've yet to see a super obese person over here besides a fellow foreigner. We'll see how long this lasts with the continued spread of western culture into China.

[Nanners]

Scientists aren't even allowed to go agains the grain on this issue or they will end up getting their funding cut, and if they lose their funding, they lose their jobs.

The whole thing is nauseating.

this post is nauseating.

are you really saying that any scientist that finds evidence showing second/third hand smoke is not harmful loses their funding and job? that there is some conspiracy in mainstream science to suppress evidence that shows how smoking is harmless?

[HarryCallahan]

what was even the point of bolding that part of my post? and way to overreact and put words in my mouth dude.

Because you were acting like it's for their own good that you would throw them in aforementioned cage, with the aforementioned rapists, thieves and murderers.

And I wasn't "putting words in your mouth," you said it should be a crime, and guess where "criminals" are sent, that's right the aforementioned cage.

That's what I mean when I say THINK, you didn't bother to make the link between the "crime" and the punishment. So THINK.

[Dresta]

this post is nauseating.

are you really saying that any scientist that finds evidence showing second/third hand smoke is not harmful loses their funding and job? that there is some conspiracy in mainstream science to suppress evidence that shows how smoking is harmless?
Don't lie: you didn't even read it, and you haven't bothered to rebut anything i said. You have just repeated the empty old argument of 'why would people mislead/ lie to me' - get a ****ing grip you ignorant child. It is amazing i can provide so much evidence for something and all you can reply with is that trite garbage. (i in fact already answered this baseless argument in my post with that quote from Peter Hitchens).

And yes, i am saying that, scientists are mostly funded by cancer charities and by government, neither of whom would accept those conclusions.

[HarryCallahan]

this post is nauseating.

are you really saying that any scientist that finds evidence showing second/third hand smoke is not harmful loses their funding and job? that there is some conspiracy in mainstream science to suppress evidence that shows how smoking is harmless?

Why does it have to be a "conspiracy?" Academia is dominated by your fellow "progressives" who have a "the ends justify the means" outlook. Is it that absurd to consider the possibility of individual progressives reaching the decision that scientists who are doing research that detracts from the progressive ideal of a smoker-less utopia are less of a funding priority?

Sounds more than reasonable to me.

[Jameerthefear]

Because you were acting like it's for their own good that you would throw them in aforementioned cage, with the aforementioned rapists, thieves and murderers.

And I wasn't "putting words in your mouth," you said it should be a crime, and guess where "criminals" are sent, that's right the aforementioned cage.

That's what I mean when I say THINK, you didn't bother to make the link between the "crime" and the punishment. So THINK.
i didn't even specify the punishment. no, i dont think people should go to jail for smoking. there. are you still offended because i said something negative about your precious cancer sticks?

[HarryCallahan]

i didn't even specify the punishment. no, i dont think people should go to jail for smoking. there. are you still offended because i said something negative about your precious cancer sticks?

I don't smoke you creepy little bastard. I just hate little Eichmann's such as yourself that want to dictate to and police the world.

Mind your own business and stop trying to tell other people how to live.

I don't tell you to stop watching creepy anime and to stop wanting to fvck your little sister do I?

[Nanners]

Don't lie: you didn't even read it, and you haven't bothered to rebut anything i said. You have just repeated the empty old argument of 'why would people mislead/ lie to me' - get a ****ing grip you ignorant child. It is amazing i can provide so much evidence for something and all you can reply with is that trite garbage. (i in fact already answered this baseless argument in my post with that quote from Peter Hitchens).

And yes, i am saying that, scientists are mostly funded by cancer charities and by government, neither of whom would accept those conclusions.

:oldlol:

i read your posts.

correct me if i am wrong, because this thread is all over the place, and i am pretty sure this whole thing started with the question "do people think its attractive when a member of the opposite sex smokes". that said, i am pretty sure that what you are saying in the post i quoted is that there is a conspiracy to suppress the scientific evidence showing harmlessness of cigarettes. if that is actually your argument, its pretty hilarious that you would call me an ignorant child.

your "evidence" starts with some bullshit from the koch policy thinktank and some shit blog. you followed this up with a few books that chronicle anti-smokers in history and a quote from peter hitchens. as far as i can tell, this is the entirety of the "evidence" you have supplied support your arguments.

i dont disagree that there is a faction of society that view their anti smoking beliefs with religious fervor, but the existence of religious anti smokers does not serve as scientific evidence that smoking is harmless. a decade or two ago, perhaps before you were born, cigarette companies were spending enormous amounts of money on scientific research. these days, the cig companies still have just as much money, but they know funding science is hopeless.

if you could scientifically prove that second hand smoke is completely harmless, phillip morris (now known as altria) would take care of your financial needs for the rest of your life.

[Jameerthefear]

I don't smoke you creepy little bastard. I just hate little Eichmann's such as yourself that want to dictate to and police the world.

Mind your own business and stop trying to tell other people how to live.

I don't tell you to stop watching creepy anime and to stop wanting to fvck your little sister do I?
I don't want to fvck my sister you douchebag

[Nanners]

Why does it have to be a "conspiracy?" Academia is dominated by your fellow "progressives" who have a "the ends justify the means" outlook. Is it that absurd to consider the possibility of individual progressives reaching the decision that scientists who are doing research that detracts from the progressive ideal of a smoker-less utopia are less of a funding priority?

Sounds more than reasonable to me.

what you are describing is a conspiracy. it is a group of powerful individuals conspiring to supress something.

anyway, as a "progressive" who supposedly dominates academia, i have absolutely no problem with smoking cigarettes. i think people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they are not harming others. if you want to smoke a cig on your own property or in a public area, its a free country my friend go right ahead.

as a scientist, i think it is absurd to suggest that there is a conspiracy to suppress pro-smoking research. the first man to prove that second hand smoke poses absolutely zero health risks will be a very rich man.

[Dresta]

:oldlol:

i read your posts.

correct me if i am wrong, because this thread is all over the place, and i am pretty sure this whole thing started with the question "do people think its attractive when a member of the opposite sex smokes". that said, i am pretty sure that what you are saying in the post i quoted is that there is a conspiracy to suppress the scientific evidence showing harmlessness of cigarettes. if that is actually your argument, its pretty hilarious that you would call me an ignorant child.

your "evidence" starts with some bullshit from the koch policy thinktank and some shit blog. you followed this up with a few books that chronicle anti-smokers in history and a quote from peter hitchens. as far as i can tell, this is the entirety of the "evidence" you have supplied support your arguments.

i dont disagree that there is a faction of society that view their anti smoking beliefs with religious fervor, but the existence of religious anti smokers does not serve as scientific evidence that smoking is harmless. a decade or two ago, perhaps before you were born, cigarette companies were spending enormous amounts of money on scientific research. these days, the cig companies still have just as much money, but they know funding science is hopeless.

if you could scientifically prove that second hand smoke is completely harmless phillip morris (now known as altria) would take care of your financial needs for the rest of your life.
Another completely phoney argument: you can't definitely prove that things don't cause something. If i said wanking causes cancer, there would be no way for you scientifically to prove me 100% wrong - the burden of proof ALWAYS lies on the person trying to prove something. If you can't prove something, your counterargument can't merely be 'well you can't disprove it' - that is idiotic, and yes, childish.

I have provided plenty of evidence, you simply choose to ignore it. Here is some more, talking specifically about this so-called 'conspiracy' that you gave the name to, and then ridiculed for being what you called it:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/passive-smoking-is-there-convincing-evidence-that-its-harmful-476472.html

'One of the largest studies of the health consequences of secondary smoking was published in the British Medical Journal in 2003. It tracked the health of 118,000 Californians over four decades in a rigorous attempt to identify a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (the scientific term for secondary smoke) and premature death. It concluded: "The results do not support a causal relationship between ETS and tobacco-related mortality."'

'A recent report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer reveals that, "In total, 23 studies have been published on [workplace] exposure to secondhand smoke. Only one reported a statistically significant association between exposure to secondhand smoke at the workplace and risk for lung cancer." One out of 23 is usually dismissed as a rogue result.

Since then, further evidence has been published by the BMJ. In March 2005 it offered fresh data suggesting that passive smoking may kill 11,000 people a year in the UK. The crucial word is "may". If there is a direct causal link between secondary smoking and lung cancer it is so tiny that dedicated campaigners have struggled to identify it. Scotland's Green Party, hardly a promoter of smoking, recently alleged that more Scots are killed by exhaust fumes than by secondary smoke.'

The article is in far more detail and notes the opinions of scientists before they were forced to jump on the bandwagon, but i just felt the need to quote those points considering you likely will not read it anyway, as you people very rarely bother to test your ready made assumptions.

[HarryCallahan]

I don't want to fvck my sister you douchebag

Then why do you watch incest lolicons young Adolph?

[Dresta]

what you are describing is a conspiracy. it is a group of powerful individuals conspiring to supress something.

anyway, as a "progressive" who supposedly dominates academia, i have absolutely no problem with smoking cigarettes. i think people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they are not harming others. if you want to smoke a cig on your own property or in a public area, its a free country my friend go right ahead.

as a scientist, i think it is absurd to suggest that there is a conspiracy to suppress pro-smoking research. the first man to prove that second hand smoke poses absolutely zero health risks will be a very rich man.
:roll: :roll:

Get real: you are not a scientist, a scientist would know that to be complete hokum. You are either being disingenuous or outright lying. Plenty of studies have shown zero causal relationship between shs and smoking related illnesses, and yet you want some kind of magical prood.

:coleman:

[HarryCallahan]

what you are describing is a conspiracy. it is a group of powerful individuals conspiring to supress something.

anyway, as a "progressive" who supposedly dominates academia, i have absolutely no problem with smoking cigarettes. i think people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they are not harming others. if you want to smoke a cig on your own property or in a public area, its a free country my friend go right ahead.

as a scientist, i think it is absurd to suggest that there is a conspiracy to suppress pro-smoking research. the first man to prove that second hand smoke poses absolutely zero health risks will be a very rich man.

It seems you have a hard time reading thoroughly, i'll repost the pertinent sentence:


Is it that absurd to consider the possibility of individual progressives reaching the decision that scientists who are doing research that detracts from the progressive ideal of a smoker-less utopia are less of a funding priority?

[Jameerthefear]

Then why do you watch incest lolicons young Adolph?
lolicon anime are girls who are pre-pubescent which is gross, and I have never watched one btw. oreimo is a show about a dude and his weird sister with a big brother complex. it's a comedy, and it shows nothing about how i feel about my irl sister (who i don't even like).

[Nanners]

[/B]:roll: :roll:

Get real: you are not a scientist, a scientist would know that to be complete hokum. You are either being disingenuous or outright lying. Plenty of studies have shown zero causal relationship between shs and smoking related illnesses, and yet you want some kind of magical prood.

:coleman:


you are saying that multiple levels of scientists and politicians are all conspiring to suppress the scientific evidence showing the harmlessness of second hand smoke?

take a look at your posts, you have not posted anything remotely scientific. all you have is blogspam and policy propaganda. here is a tiny bit of actual science on second hand smoking:

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/tobaccosmoke/executivesummary.pdf

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=03C9AF75-E1BF-FF40-DBA9EC0928DF8B15

http://www.prevention.ch/who.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healtheffects.html

[Dresta]

you are saying that multiple levels of scientists and politicians are all conspiring to suppress the scientific evidence showing the harmlessness of second hand smoke?

take a look at your posts, you have not posted anything remotely scientific. all you have is blogspam and policy propaganda. here is a tiny bit of actual science on second hand smoking:

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/tobaccosmoke/executivesummary.pdf

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=03C9AF75-E1BF-FF40-DBA9EC0928DF8B15

http://www.prevention.ch/who.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healtheffects.html
What are you talking about you absolute cretin, what the hell were the last two quotes i posted if not studies. The last post clearly and thoroughly deconstructed the phoney science behind this, and showed that a very small minority of studies have been statistically significant AT ALL. And yet in your eyes that is 'blogspam and policy propaganda' - you once again have not answered or rebutted anything that has been said, just merely continued with your fallacious arguments. There is no precision to anything you say, it is simply facile equivocation followed by facile equivocation.

All those links show absolutely nothing:

The first has no mention of shs, it is simply about normal smoking. The second has no relevance or information as to what is being discussed. The third is scientifically insignificant and the result of selectively pooled together data. There is no detailed explanation about the data, simply 'this is what we came up with and you should believe it' - when i have seen studies on spousal shs caused lung cancer that find spouses of smokers to have a lung cancer rate of 9 in 100,000 and those not married to smokers to have 6 in 100,000 - this is then reported as a 33% increased risk (as is done in your 'actual' science study), when it is not even close to being scientifically significant. The fourth is a government agency with a clear agenda, that doesn't actually post how it comes to its ridiculous conclusions. It approximates without saying how or why it does so, and has a few poor and selective studies at the bottom that show only very minor correlation, and is about a million miles from being scientific proof of anything.

I like how you ignored my rebuttal of your idiotic claim that the burden of proof is on proving that something doesn't cause something else. One of the least scientific things i have ever read, and yet from a supposed 'scientist' (i don't buy that for a second).

Conspiring? No one needs to conspire you buffoon. They need only to follow their own self-interest, like most people tend to do. Go away you facile clown, you have said nothing interesting or useful, only rehashed already rebutted arguments (if you can even call it that) and refused to believe something that in your eyes you have needlessly called a 'conspiracy theory.' Well, morons like you preclude the need for any conspiracies, you will accept spurious evidence as fact so it only needs to be presented to form an overwhelming consensus. A consensus of bloody morons who can't analyse or think for themselves.

edit: i show a piece of investigative journalism explicating how scientists have been hounded merely for publishing the results of studies that did not agree with the popular consensus, you completely ignore the whole thing and then go on to proclaim my a conspiracy theorist. Go **** yourself, asshole. I will not be replying to you again.

[Nanners]

dresta, i have absolutely no problem with the fact that you smoke cigarettes. i actually agree with your original post before you went insane in this thread - i think its sexy when women smoke.

i sincerely hope you smoke as many cigs as you possibly can.

[Dresta]

Had enough of writing things out only for people to reduce what i'm saying to something i didn't say and then ridiculing it, and especially people using arguments like 'most people say this therefore it is irrefutable.'

I don't actually care if second hand smoke poses a very minor risk (which is all it could pose despite the mad hatred of smoke), because i think it is fair for smoking to be banned in places where people can't avoid it, but to enforce a total ban like has been done is autocratic and has nothing to do with protecting people's health, it is all to try and make smoking less enjoyable and so to force people to quit. It is a policy attempt at mass behaviour modification. But i get fed up of people pretending the evidence is irrefutable when the majority of studies have shown no significant causal link. (and the 3rd hand smoke thing is a disgraceful lie attempting to split households and force people to quit smoking)

And yet throughout the Western world the whole thing is accepted without a peep as politicians having our best interests at heart, showing what a bunch of pliant tools people are. If you think this ends with cigarettes then you are greatly mistaken.

[HarryCallahan]

lolicon anime are girls who are pre-pubescent which is gross, and I have never watched one btw. oreimo is a show about a dude and his weird sister with a big brother complex. it's a comedy, and it shows nothing about how i feel about my irl sister (who i don't even like).

I was just busting your balls buddy. I know you're not into lolicon.

[RidonKs]

Ridonks, you should never tell a girl she's fat. No matter how big she is or level-headed she may seem, in my experience- no woman will take it the right way. Unless you're Oprah, Dr. Oz or Dr. Drew.
lol yea, learned this the hard way. i dunno, we had a funny relationship, super open and frank, loads of teasing because we knew each of us could handle it. she was pissed off and depressed after another debilitating night of rejection, i was kinda drunk and trying to console. she told me once some dude gave her his number at a bar, she phoned him up the next day and they all laughed at her. i mean thats kinda funny in hs but to hear the victim describe it in her mid 20s is just heartbreaking. she was clearly depressed and i tried to make her feel better by pointing out the obvious and then suggesting, sure you're overweight, for plenty of guys thats a turn-off, but that's not everybody, you've got a whole helluva lot going for you, stay patient and it'll come... and i guess i overestimated what was appropriate.

the deal sealer, and i forget how it came up, but somehow i invoked myself... when we first met she was into me and i had to nicely let her down. her question was "ooh i get it, so if i wasn't so fat you would have dated me", i was like "uuuhhhhh", she was like "gtfo"

man i suck lol

[RidonKs]

Does not that they have the audacity to purport something as absurd as 3rd hand smoke strike you as a little odd? Something is clearly not right there don't you think?
tbh, yeah it was pretty damn surprising. and when it came out i was a smoker... still am occasionally. i remember bringing it up in conversation a bunch back then just cuz it was such an 'absurd' statistic. never really bothered to think it through just on a common sense level.

that statistical insignificance bit you wrote it interesting, the 30% jump. i'm just taking your word for it but that's pretty damning and intellectually dishonest if it's true and still getting publicity from gov't and quasi-govt organizations. heres the most substantial american report i could find (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmoke/fullreport.pdf), its referred to in the link nanners posted. over 600 pages from the surgeon general directly addressing shs in 2006. i was just scanning it, they have a classification system 1-4 ranging from sufficiently proven causal link to suggestive lack of causal link, but the meta analysis methodology is weird... i dunno, im not exactly diving into it but the study refuses to go strictly by quantitative analysis, which they admit contributes nothing to their conclusion, and instead mixes it up with qualitative case studies. if you looked deep into this issue you must have at least at some point come across this publication dresta. thoguhts?

i still have a hard time buying all this but the quick glance i gave at that report didn't offer much in the way of substantial evidence. i dunno now lol



If you think this ends with cigarettes then you are greatly mistaken.
care to venture a guess as to where it ends then?

you also mentioned the hitch brother and his qualified criticism of the science, accepting the ban outright on grounds of top-down morality shift... since cigarettes ARE far and away the most lethal consumable substance known to man (maybe 2nd to sugar ive heard), and also hyper addictive, do the ends justify the means? in spite of my typically libertarian leanings on these things, i have a hard time not answering in the affirmative



just to continue this convo cuz it's interesting, what do you guys think of discriminating against smokers? is this anything close to an equal rights scenario or are employers perfectly entitled to reject a candidate based on their addiction to cigarettes? bear in mind this has nothing to do with requests for more breaks, it's more to do with future health concerns and maybe odor..

there was a case here in canada, i never heard any resolution, it was just up for discussion on the radio.

[HarryCallahan]

just to continue this convo cuz it's interesting, what do you guys think of discriminating against smokers? is this anything close to an equal rights scenario or are employers perfectly entitled to reject a candidate based on their addiction to cigarettes? bear in mind this has nothing to do with requests for more breaks, it's more to do with future health concerns and maybe odor..

there was a case here in canada, i never heard any resolution, it was just up for discussion on the radio.

Absolutely. It's not an overwhelming factor, but if you're wanting to employ someone long-term and you have two equal candidates, one a smoker the other a non-smoker then you'd be crazy not to pick the non-smoker.

[Hoodlum Science]

Absolutely. It's not an overwhelming factor, but if you're wanting to employ someone long-term and you have two equal candidates, one a smoker the other a non-smoker then you'd be crazy not to pick the non-smoker.

Exactly. Health insurance is pricey, for both the individual and the employer. Medical benefits are a huge chunk of any company's expenses. A non-smoker is much more likely to keep medical costs down for said company compared to the smoker.

Smokers have been acutely offended in the past decade or so crying about "MY RIGHTS!" "MY RIGHTS!" "YOU'RE TAKING AWAY MY RIGHTS!" ... first of all, STFU, go outside, light up another cancer-stick and pipe down. Secondly, smoking doesn't grant you any special ****ing rights.

You can't smoke in bars now. You can't smoke in restaurants now. You have to walk far away from company premises to suck on a Newport. SO ****ING WHAT!? Hello, there are others around you who don't smoke, and don't want smoke blown in their face or in an environment where you have to inhale that shit. The debate for many years was second-hand smoke, and now that's it's proven without a shadow of a doubt it's harmful to non-smokers, IT SHOULD BE required that smokers take that shit around other like-minded fools and not expose the rest of the population.

I swear, people complaining about having to wait 15 additional minutes before the rest of their family/party finishes their meal so they can smoke. You think you have a RIGHT to sit there, eat your dinner, then enjoy a cig while others around you are eating.

:facepalm

Quite frankly kind sir, **** YOU.

[tomtucker]

Exactly. Health insurance is pricey, for both the individual and the employer. Medical benefits are a huge chunk of any company's expenses. A non-smoker is much more likely to keep medical costs down for said company compared to the smoker.

Smokers have been acutely offended in the past decade or so crying about "MY RIGHTS!" "MY RIGHTS!" "YOU'RE TAKING AWAY MY RIGHTS!" ... first of all, STFU, go outside, light up another cancer-stick and pipe down. Secondly, smoking doesn't grant you any special ****ing rights.

You can't smoke in bars now. You can't smoke in restaurants now. You have to walk far away from company premises to suck on a Newport. SO ****ING WHAT!? Hello, there are others around you who don't smoke, and don't want smoke blown in their face or in an environment where you have to inhale that shit. The debate for many years was second-hand smoke, and now that's it's proven without a shadow of a doubt it's harmful to non-smokers, IT SHOULD BE required that smokers take that shit around other like-minded fools and not expose the rest of the population.

I swear, people complaining about having to wait 15 additional minutes before the rest of their family/party finishes their meal so they can smoke. You think you have a RIGHT to sit there, eat your dinner, then enjoy a cig while others around you are eating.

:facepalm

Quite frankly kind sir, **** YOU.
:applause:

[Myth]

I'd like to see a law that stops people from walking on a sidewalk and smoking. If they are standing still, I can hold my breathe for like 5 seconds as I walk past. But if they are walking and I'm heading in the same direction, it is constantly in my face, so I have to choose to stop dead in my tracks and wait till they are far enough ahead (and damned if another smoker walks by as I wait), or start power walking suddenly to pass them.

[Jameerthefear]

I don't mean to keep the smoker hate train going, but does anyone else hate when you go into a smoker's house and aftewards your close smell like ass? Seriously you can't even get the smell out most of the time.

[SilkkTheShocker]

I don't mean to keep the smoker hate train going, but does anyone else hate when you go into a smoker's house and aftewards your close smell like ass? Seriously you can't even get the smell out most of the time.

Tell me about it. I had a grandma that smoked at least 2 least packs of Pall Mall cigarettes a day in her apartment. Your clothes absolutely reeked when you left of smoke. Have a few friends that smoke, but their places aren't anything close to her apartment.

[reppy]

the deal sealer, and i forget how it came up, but somehow i invoked myself... when we first met she was into me and i had to nicely let her down. her question was "ooh i get it, so if i wasn't so fat you would have dated me", i was like "uuuhhhhh", she was like "gtfo"

man i suck lol

I don't know why people are so upset over this type of thing.

I used to have hair down to my chest. A lot of women don't find men with long hair attractive. Should I tell them to gtfo because they have a preference? HEY, WHY WON'T YOU DATE GUYS THAT WEAR BAND LOGO SHIRTS? GTFO!

I had to cut my hair off when I got a job in retail. But then it got me thinking: why exactly? Is it because long hair means you're lazy? You do drugs? You smell bad? But then, what about obese people? I don't think you can refuse to hire someone because of their weight, unless it hinders their ability to perform the job.

What does being obese say about the person? I don't think it makes them a bad human being. But what does being an alcoholic or a drug addict say about the person? Most people would say that it's because they're addicted; they're using drugs to mask emotions; they're irresponsible; or, they have no self control.

What's the difference between someone that has a bad day and drinks a six pack at the end of the day versus the person that destroys an entire half gallon of ice cream?

[AlphaWolf24]

I don't know why people are so upset over this type of thing.

I used to have hair down to my chest. A lot of women don't find men with long hair attractive. Should I tell them to gtfo because they have a preference? HEY, WHY WON'T YOU DATE GUYS THAT WEAR BAND LOGO SHIRTS? GTFO!

I had to cut my hair off when I got a job in retail. But then it got me thinking: why exactly? Is it because long hair means you're lazy? You do drugs? You smell bad? But then, what about obese people? I don't think you can refuse to hire someone because of their weight, unless it hinders their ability to perform the job.

What does being obese say about the person? I don't think it makes them a bad human being. But what does being an alcoholic or a drug addict say about the person? Most people would say that it's because they're addicted; they're using drugs to mask emotions; they're irresponsible; or, they have no self control.

What's the difference between someone that has a bad day and drinks a six pack at the end of the day versus the person that destroys an entire half gallon of ice cream?


- most people just don't want to see fat people....:confusedshrug:



is it that hard to understand?

[HarryCallahan]

Tell me about it. I had a grandma that smoked at least 2 least packs of Pall Mall cigarettes a day in her apartment. Your clothes absolutely reeked when you left of smoke. Have a few friends that smoke, but their places aren't anything close to her apartment.

Pall Mall smells horrible. I got a buddy who smokes them and it makes me nauseous. I'm usually fine with smelling smoke by the way.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Pall Mall smells horrible. I got a buddy who smokes them and it makes me nauseous. I'm usually fine with smelling smoke by the way.

Agreed. Smokers don't both me for the most part. But Pall Malls have a stronger smell.

[Is He Ill]

Exactly. Health insurance is pricey, for both the individual and the employer. Medical benefits are a huge chunk of any company's expenses. A non-smoker is much more likely to keep medical costs down for said company compared to the smoker.

Smokers have been acutely offended in the past decade or so crying about "MY RIGHTS!" "MY RIGHTS!" "YOU'RE TAKING AWAY MY RIGHTS!" ... first of all, STFU, go outside, light up another cancer-stick and pipe down. Secondly, smoking doesn't grant you any special ****ing rights.

You can't smoke in bars now. You can't smoke in restaurants now. You have to walk far away from company premises to suck on a Newport. SO ****ING WHAT!? Hello, there are others around you who don't smoke, and don't want smoke blown in their face or in an environment where you have to inhale that shit. The debate for many years was second-hand smoke, and now that's it's proven without a shadow of a doubt it's harmful to non-smokers, IT SHOULD BE required that smokers take that shit around other like-minded fools and not expose the rest of the population.

I swear, people complaining about having to wait 15 additional minutes before the rest of their family/party finishes their meal so they can smoke. You think you have a RIGHT to sit there, eat your dinner, then enjoy a cig while others around you are eating.

:facepalm

Quite frankly kind sir, **** YOU.

:bowdown:

[Balla_Status]

Fat people are gross as **** and you know what disgusts me? I saw commercials one morning for a Say Yes to the Dress fat people version. Why do men stand for shit like that? There's nothing wrong with saying no to a girl because she's fat (****ing them is ok). Not being able to take care of yourself is not a redeeming quality in a female. And no, that doesn't mean the male has to have a Ryan Reynolds body.

We've created a society where we accept fat people. That needs to stop. And please myth, miss me with the ignorance shit. You think fat people have existed regardless over the years? Hell no. We've created it with shit food and technology that allows us to be lazy and still survive. With that said, there are great apps out there that allow you to track calories.

And smoking is gross as **** too. If you're riding in a car with me, you better not smoke a cigarette before stepping in. Because you smell like absolute garbage. And my Dad quit smoking when he was in his early 20s while his twin sister and older sister kept it up. They look like absolute shit compared to my Dad. His older sister died last month. Terrible of course but it's true.

Don't even get me started on the smokers taking a smoking break during manual labor portions of my job.

[Myth]

. And please myth, miss me with the ignorance shit. You think fat people have existed regardless over the years? Hell no. We've created it with shit food and technology that allows us to be lazy and still survive. With that said, there are great apps out there that allow you to track calories.


Fat people have existed forever; although, modern foods certainly increase the % by a ridiculous amount.

[Balla_Status]

Fat people have existed forever; although, modern foods certainly increase the % by a ridiculous amount.

I bet if you looked at tribes of people that live out in the world and not in the equivalent modern society of the time, you wouldn't see any fat people.

Check out the book Born to Run.

[Hoodlum Science]

At one time being fat and plump was considered "high class" - being well fed symbolized wealth and luxurious lifestyle. Thank God civilization as a whole graduated from that backwoods minded thinking. Funny, way back in the day the fatty bitches would walk the streets and laugh pointing fingers at the skinny fine as **** hotties.

:facepalm

[Hoodlum Science]

I bet if you looked at tribes of people that live out in the world and not in the equivalent modern society of the time, you wouldn't see any fat people.

Certainly not in large percentages, but there have always been overweight people, even as minute as that group of folks would have been. At any one time or another since humans have existed, at least 1-3% of the population has been overweight.

[Stempel, HERB]

At one time being fat and plump was considered "high class" - being well fed symbolized wealth and luxurious lifestyle. Thank God civilization as a whole graduated from that backwoods minded thinking. Funny, way back in the day the fatty bitches would walk the streets and laugh pointing fingers at the skinny fine as **** hotties.

:facepalm

Are you still loving **** on the down low or have you finally made peace with your sexual preference and backwoods religion

[AlphaWolf24]

At one time being fat and plump was considered "high class" - being well fed symbolized wealth and luxurious lifestyle. Thank God civilization as a whole graduated from that backwoods minded thinking. Funny, way back in the day the fatty bitches would walk the streets and laugh pointing fingers at the skinny fine as **** hotties.

:facepalm

I saw pictures of the time period you are talking about....

http://i.stack.imgur.com/PR11R.jpg

- them chicks were a little thick.....much like today...we still have a large population of men who like thick Girls.

- But I think since the dawn of man.....Men wanted a good hip ratio.....not some Big ol' Monster B!tchez.

( hence why all the devices to make women thin...I.E. corsets etc.)

[Scholar]

At one time being fat and plump was considered "high class" - being well fed symbolized wealth and luxurious lifestyle. Thank God civilization as a whole graduated from that backwoods minded thinking. Funny, way back in the day the fatty bitches would walk the streets and laugh pointing fingers at the skinny fine as **** hotties.

:facepalm

100% accurate.

If you look up paintings of wealthy women, they were always pudgy. Paintings of nude women of centuries past show fat tummies, no ass, saggy tits, etc.

[Hoodlum Science]

Are you still loving **** on the down low or have you finally made peace with your sexual preference and backwoods religion

Come again? Care to repeat, in English perhaps. You'll have to excuse me, I'm not fluent in retard (still awaiting the Rosetta Stone software package).

[Swaggin916]

Fat people are gross as **** and you know what disgusts me? I saw commercials one morning for a Say Yes to the Dress fat people version. Why do men stand for shit like that? There's nothing wrong with saying no to a girl because she's fat (****ing them is ok). Not being able to take care of yourself is not a redeeming quality in a female. And no, that doesn't mean the male has to have a Ryan Reynolds body.

We've created a society where we accept fat people. That needs to stop. And please myth, miss me with the ignorance shit. You think fat people have existed regardless over the years? Hell no. We've created it with shit food and technology that allows us to be lazy and still survive. With that said, there are great apps out there that allow you to track calories.

And smoking is gross as **** too. If you're riding in a car with me, you better not smoke a cigarette before stepping in. Because you smell like absolute garbage. And my Dad quit smoking when he was in his early 20s while his twin sister and older sister kept it up. They look like absolute shit compared to my Dad. His older sister died last month. Terrible of course but it's true.

Don't even get me started on the smokers taking a smoking break during manual labor portions of my job.

We have definitely not created a society where we accept fat people. Looks at this thread for Christ sake.

One of these days you too will give up and realize why people stop caring. It's inevitable as you get older. When people are young they think they have it all figured out and judge the hell out of others. Young people don't know shit man, they really don't. When you are 50 or 60, been through the ringer, are on the decline physically... then come back and tell me how unacceptable all this stuff you are spewing is.

[iamgine]

Was there really a time when fat women were considered hotter? Or was it just a myth?

[Is He Ill]

Was there really a time when fat women were considered hotter? Or was it just a myth?

Even nowadays there are a quite a few places in the world where obese women are considered to be more attractive.

[KNOW1EDGE]

are fat people ALWAYS less healthy than people who are not medically labeled as "over-weight"?

Can there be a super fat guy, who is healthier or more fit than a skinny person?? Does being obese automatically make you un-healthy?

For instance, a left guard in the NFL, who is fat, but athletic, and possibly on a healthy diet. Hes got to be healthier or more fit than a skinny dude who eats fast food all the time and gets no exercise.

[tomtucker]

Even nowadays there are a quite a few places in the world where obese women are considered to be more attractive.

mostly becoz it shows you are rich enough to eat alot, right ?

[Is He Ill]

mostly becoz it shows you are rich enough to eat alot, right ?

Probably something along those lines, although it probably varies. I saw a doc a few years ago that showed some place in Africa where young women are force fed buckets of milk by their mothers so that they could put on a bunch of weight. The mothers would even use torture devices on their daughters in order to ensure that they finish all of their milk for the day. Then the parents of the women would exchange their daughter's hand in marriage for a certain number of cows. The fatter the woman, the more cows she was worth. I had no idea this type of thing still existed.

[Balla_Status]

We have definitely not created a society where we accept fat people. Looks at this thread for Christ sake.

One of these days you too will give up and realize why people stop caring. It's inevitable as you get older. When people are young they think they have it all figured out and judge the hell out of others. Young people don't know shit man, they really don't. When you are 50 or 60, been through the ringer, are on the decline physically... then come back and tell me how unacceptable all this stuff you are spewing is.

There's old people that complete ironmans, marathons etc. I'll become a runner at that point in my life. You can never stop being good at running. That's pretty much one thing that old people can still compete with young people at.

[rezznor]

We have definitely not created a society where we accept fat people. Looks at this thread for Christ sake.

One of these days you too will give up and realize why people stop caring. It's inevitable as you get older. When people are young they think they have it all figured out and judge the hell out of others. Young people don't know shit man, they really don't. When you are 50 or 60, been through the ringer, are on the decline physically... then come back and tell me how unacceptable all this stuff you are spewing is.
http://www.vincedelmontefitness.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Tom-Bodd-After-Maximize-Your-Muscle-Transformation.jpeg

http://fitness-is-beauty.ophibian.com/fit-old-ladies/old-woman-yoga-300x200.jpg

http://aginginhawaii.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/extreme-old-people-surfing.jpg

http://lexxistalking.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/very-fit-60-year-old-man.png

http://images.counselheal.com/data/images/full/2622/beefcake-age-fit-exercise.jpg

these people say hi. but hey, if you want to give up at age 50 then be my guest.

[bmulls]

http://www.vincedelmontefitness.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Tom-Bodd-After-Maximize-Your-Muscle-Transformation.jpeg

http://images.counselheal.com/data/images/full/2622/beefcake-age-fit-exercise.jpg

these people say hi. but hey, if you want to give up at age 50 then be my guest.

These dudes are on steroids. That isn't wrong in and of itself but let's not pretend like every 50-60 year old is capable of looking like that if only they just try hard.

[rezznor]

These dudes are on steroids. That isn't wrong in and of itself but let's not pretend like every 50-60 year old is capable of looking like that if only they just try hard.
i'm not saying every elderly person is capable of looking like that, but what i am saying is that they didn't give up on life. i have seen plenty of elderly people run marathons and stay active in other ways. hell, that was one of my inspirations to run one. i always hated distance running but i saw these 80 year olds running it and i told myself i had no excuse.

[B-Low]

i'm not saying every elderly person is capable of looking like that, but what i am saying is that they didn't give up on life. i have seen plenty of elderly people run marathons and stay active in other ways. hell, that was one of my inspirations to run one. i always hated distance running but i saw these 80 year olds running it and i told myself i had no excuse.

I'm actually going to watch the national senior olympics tomorrow. Thousands of non-roided up old folks doing everything from track and field to weight lifting to triathlons. There's definitely more old people that decide to give up when their bodies start going downhill than ones willing to keep in shape, but it's still a choice like you said. I'm not saying I'm gonna be a competitive athlete when I get older, but I'm definitely gonna be as fit and active as my body will allow me to be.

Hell my grandma's 82 and is still a dance instructor, walks 2 miles every morning, does all her yard work and bikes.

[Myth]

http://images.counselheal.com/data/images/full/2622/beefcake-age-fit-exercise.jpg

these people say hi. but hey, if you want to give up at age 50 then be my guest.

This guy takes steroids. We all know it.

[HarryCallahan]

This guy takes steroids. We all know it.

Bullsh!t. You're just basing that on pre-conceived notions of old people being frail and weak.

[bmulls]

Bullsh!t. You're just basing that on pre-conceived notions of old people being frail and weak.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic but if you think that guy is natural you are a fcking idiot :lol

[HarryCallahan]

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic but if you think that guy is natural you are a fcking idiot :lol

:rolleyes:

Look at his forearms...

[Balla_Status]

These dudes are on steroids. That isn't wrong in and of itself but let's not pretend like every 50-60 year old is capable of looking like that if only they just try hard.

True as that is I don't think that was his point.

You can be in great shape at that age. Hell, when I did my first triathlon, this old dude told me to get the **** out of his way.:oldlol:

When it comes to cardio and endurance events, old people can still kick ass. You get old because you stop exercising. Not the other way around.