tvashtarkatena

I noticed there's no distinction there between being (a) part of an advanced space-faring civilization and (b) being part of the food supply of an advanced space-faring civilization. When they come, they will come TO SERVE MAN.

Such detachment will be required of a space faring civilization.

Yeah, I agree it's thier business, but I don't want to pay for it. I want points or a price break on my health insurance for having a normal BMI and exercising and not smoking, etc., just like I get a discount on my car insurance for safe driving. I don't want to pay for someone else's adult onset diabetes and high blood pressure and quadruple bypass. Ditto. A matter of virtue? No. A matter of responsibility? Yes. Many life threatening conditions have an overwhelmingly genetic component. It's not all "personal responsibility" (not even half or a quarter, an a lot of cases). Are you saying that you want a price break (or you want others to pay more, same thing) for your/their genetics? If one accepts the proposition that one has as little control over or responsibility for their behavior as they do their genetic inheritance, then this line of argument might have some merit. There are untold millions of people in this country who have probably inherited traits that make it more challenging for them to avoid harming others in some fashion, yet they enjoy no special exemptions from the expectation that they will do so, unless their impairment is so severe that they are deemed insane and granted a separate legal status whereby they are no longer held responsible for their actions. There may be a certain number of persons who have inherited traits such that society cannot reasonably expect to control the quantity of food that they consume, and they would be afforded exemptions from the expectation that they do so. For everyone else - the fatter they get, the more they should pay for their health insurance. THis is a formula for an even more invasive society. Levy a health care tax on fatties and, faster than you can add curly fries to that shake, they'll class action sue or lobby for legislation and levy a tax on risky behavior that might result in traumatic injury. Remember, the fatties are in the majority. You'll also have to somehow separate out and weigh (no pun intended) the genetic component of disease. That means genetic testing for everyone...and the rampant wholesale denial of insurance that would undoubtedly result. And privacy issues? Pshah! Finally, you'll have to have a system for monitoring behavior (what did you eat today, Mr. JayB?) as part of enforcement. This would undoubtedly result in a health care system many times more expensive due to the aforementioned overhead than the one we have now; hardly a change in the positive direction for anyone. I don't know about you, but pay the same as the two tone tillies so as to enjoy the resultant benefits of a simpler, less expensive one size fits all health care system, and fight obesity through public education: the only method that really works to produce widespread, substantive change in personal behavior. These are good points. As things stand now, the insurance companies can't price risk by simply looking at your age, sex, and driving record and as an effective proxy for your driving habits, and instead had to implement systems to continuously monitor every moment of everyone's driving. It's also true that there's no price competition in this market, so the costs associated with doing so have no bearing on the enthusiasm that any particular company might have on engaging in such monitoring, and if consumers had the option of submitting to continuously surveilance or basing their risk-pricing on their driving record, this would be a matter of indifference to them. The notion that we can distinguish between behaviors that mentally competent adults are capable of regulating, and those that they cannot, and that we can make the distinction between those adults who are capable of performing the mental operations required to do so, and those who can't is the basis of quite a few of the principles that society is organized upon. It's rather odd to observe people arguing so passionately against the same principles that - outside of such a debate - govern their expectations concerning how other people conduct themselves and what they are responsible for. If people can't be expected to govern what they eat, and in what quantities - then they can't be expected to control whether they smoke or not, and the list goes on. I don't think that anyone who argues that the vast majority of people have no control over their weight actually believe such an absurd proposition. So why defend such a specious argument? Why is the idea that there are elements of one's existence that one has substantial control over so threatening? You're much younger than I am, and so you're accustomed to a much more regulated (particularly by unaccountable corporations) world. I'm used to a freer society where privacy means something. Fair enough. It's all about the environment we were brought up in.

Average fleet mileage was higher in the early 90's than it is now. Our 'free market' solution has brought us 15+ years of the most accelerated greenhouse gas accumulation in history...and it didn't need to be that way.

You hurt yourself every time you post on this board. Cycling and child rearing together account for HUGE healthcare costs: BICYCLE-RELATED DEATHS AND INJURIES • In 2002, nearly 288,900 children ages 14 and under were treated in hospital emergency rooms for bicycle-related injuries. Nearly half (47 percent) of children ages 14 and under hospitalized for bicycle-related injuries are diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury. • In 2002, children ages 14 and under accounted for 36 percent of bicyclists injured in motor vehicle crashes. It is estimated that collisions with motor vehicles account for nearly 90 percent of all bicycle-related deaths and 10 percent of all nonfatal bicycle-related injuries. • More than 40 percent of all bicycle-related deaths due to head injuries and approximately three-fourths of all bicycle-related head injuries occur among children ages 14 and under. Bicycle accident for children under 14 It's pretty clear to me that parents who give bicycles to children under 14 should be charged heavily for the burden their precious little ones place on our health care system.

Damn straight. Show a pair of lungs with bitch tits hanging off em. Like yours? At least the bitch who owns those tits is standing on top of a mountain (Storm King, in this case). One of many this season. Haven't seen you on top of one lately...er...ever, as a matter of fact.

Yeah, I agree it's thier business, but I don't want to pay for it. I want points or a price break on my health insurance for having a normal BMI and exercising and not smoking, etc., just like I get a discount on my car insurance for safe driving. I don't want to pay for someone else's adult onset diabetes and high blood pressure and quadruple bypass. Ditto. A matter of virtue? No. A matter of responsibility? Yes. Many life threatening conditions have an overwhelmingly genetic component. It's not all "personal responsibility" (not even half or a quarter, an a lot of cases). Are you saying that you want a price break (or you want others to pay more, same thing) for your/their genetics? If one accepts the proposition that one has as little control over or responsibility for their behavior as they do their genetic inheritance, then this line of argument might have some merit. There are untold millions of people in this country who have probably inherited traits that make it more challenging for them to avoid harming others in some fashion, yet they enjoy no special exemptions from the expectation that they will do so, unless their impairment is so severe that they are deemed insane and granted a separate legal status whereby they are no longer held responsible for their actions. There may be a certain number of persons who have inherited traits such that society cannot reasonably expect to control the quantity of food that they consume, and they would be afforded exemptions from the expectation that they do so. For everyone else - the fatter they get, the more they should pay for their health insurance. THis is a formula for an even more invasive society. Levy a health care tax on fatties and, faster than you can add curly fries to that shake, they'll class action sue or lobby for legislation and levy a tax on risky behavior that might result in traumatic injury. Remember, the fatties are in the majority. You'll also have to somehow separate out and weigh (no pun intended) the genetic component of disease. That means genetic testing for everyone...and the rampant wholesale denial of insurance that would undoubtedly result. And privacy issues? Pshah! Finally, you'll have to have a system for monitoring behavior (what did you eat today, Mr. JayB?) as part of enforcement. This would undoubtedly result in a health care system many times more expensive due to the aforementioned overhead than the one we have now; hardly a change in the positive direction for anyone. I don't know about you, but pay the same as the two tone tillies so as to enjoy the resultant benefits of a simpler, less expensive one size fits all health care system, and fight obesity through public education: the only method that really works to produce widespread, substantive change in personal behavior.

Comm an' do

Yeah, I agree it's thier business, but I don't want to pay for it. I want points or a price break on my health insurance for having a normal BMI and exercising and not smoking, etc., just like I get a discount on my car insurance for safe driving. I don't want to pay for someone else's adult onset diabetes and high blood pressure and quadruple bypass. Ditto. A matter of virtue? No. A matter of responsibility? Yes. Many life threatening conditions have an overwhelmingly genetic component. It's not all "personal responsibility" (not even half or a quarter, an a lot of cases). Are you saying that you want a price break (or you want others to pay more, same thing) for your/their genetics?

I ate my television.

hagiographically speaking, that is

Damn straight. Show a pair of lungs with bitch tits hanging off em.

I've now peed on my beard, and I even got my truck runnin'. Ladies, come git sum.

It's not just pee

I'd have to post the scratch n sniff format.

Don't pet them during mating season. Trust me on that.

"Thanks. I think...."

Thanks. I think...."

Thanks. I think...."

Thanks. I think...."

The man is nothing if not photogenic.

My cousin cleared about an acre of blackberries with 200 rented goats. It took about a month. It is now beautifully landscaped garden, in Cali, so no useful contacts here. Goats work. Just a data point....

personalizing a discussion, bringing in family members, and in general people who can't defend themselves on the site: Interesting that you chose not to admonish when FW started the trend on this thread. Apparently, your principles are either person or gender specific.

"I think there was a study in the popular media a while back?" Riiiiighhhhht. The 'study' probably didn't include the category of fit guy who doesn't give a shit what he drives who can kick FW's ass all the way up Mailbox or any other peak in the Cascades. Oh, and BTW, nice rant against menopause, FW. That pretty much denigrated all women on the planet in one go, including your own mother. The Seattle metrosexual thing is funny, too. Mostly, I see pretty healthy people walking around this town. When I go to, say, one of western Washington's 'rural communities', like Black Diamond or Maple Valley, for example, there seems to be an overabundance of scrawny meth heads in some really blown out pickups screeching around. Ladies, what are you waiting for? FYI, a large percentage of 'buffed out guys', you know, the body builder types, are gay.

All this time I've been thinking that trying to be a good lover is one of the most masculine things a guy can do. Thank God FW has finally come a long to set me right.