foraker Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 and mushrooms. I want some mushrooms cj001f is in need of a good russian bender right now i may get some билий гриб (white mushrooms) this weekend... going on a hike with some countrymen... but it's always a scary thing - a leap of faith to trust those guys to differentiate a delicacy from poison. fuck, ANOTHER RISKY BEHAVIOR! watch out for that shit, man. the eastern Euros in northern CA were always dying from some mushrooms that they'd 'identified' as being the same as what they ate back home, except the ones we have here cause your liver to die a horrible painful death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No. 13 Baby Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Fatties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 [quote=JayB Who is talking about virtue here? What anyone chooses to do to their own body is their business, whether that's inhaling smoke or five helpings of curly fries and washing it down with 64-oz Slurpee. 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. So it was this environment that's responsible for your oft-stated desire to nationalize a massive sector of the economy and supplant voluntary interactions with control by a massive centralized bureaucracy, grant the government control over everyone's health care, and your desire to have the same entity micromanage all facets of human activity beyond simple respiration that generate C02 emissions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 So it was this environment that's responsible for your oft-stated desire to nationalize a massive sector of the economy and supplant voluntary interactions with control by a massive centralized bureaucracy, grant the government control over everyone's health care, and your desire to have the same entity micromanage all facets of human activity beyond simple respiration that generate C02 emissions? Aren't you the one who supports politicians who've lamented the lack of sodomy laws? Espouse fiscal responsibility as you passionately argue for another useless invasion? Or is this one of those times you'll change loyalties and express your libertarian bias nobly pissing your vote away Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuMR Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 fuckin kills me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizard_brain Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Don't fatties deserve special treatment? After all, they are victims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 (edited) Just do what they did for smokers. For smokers, they showed what smoking did to lungs. Just show what obesity can lead to in the same stark medical terms. 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. Here's a fairly recent contribution: http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=719818 You can search for the dozens of other TR's I've posted here - keeping in mind that I rarely post my trips. Feel free to do a search. Please note the absence of man-breasts in my photos. Nice stickers on your helmet too, BTW! ...although I'm not too sure exactly what it is you're trying to protect... Yeah, the stickers were from the 2004 Primal Quest adventure race I ran. Google it, it's for pussy-lib guys with bitch tits. Still haven't SEEN you on top of a mountain, though. No pics, no proof. Edited October 23, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Holly schnikees. I'm 120/70 My doc says, "people would pay for bp like yours" and I say "What, you think my gym membership is free?" Yeah, I used to be 140/90. These days it's more like 120/70. Had my BP taken today (at the dentist, wtf?). I'm 110/70. Must be all the whiskey dropped me down 10 points on the systolic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizard_brain Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 One thing I find is that after a multi-day trip in the mountains, after we get back and go to the nearest town to find something to eat, we go walking down the street, and I find I am asking myself 'What are all of these FAT people doing here?' EVERYONE looks fat in these towns after a few days climbing with some reasonably healthy friends. This is my selling point to get people to take me with them. I make re-entry into the regular world of fat people much easier. Hey, I'm here to help. what the fuck are you laughing at, scrawny? A co-worker called me 'skinny'. I told her "No, this is 'normal'. 'Skinny' is underweight." I left it at fat that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 A co-worker called me 'skinny'. I told her 'No, this is 'normal'. 'Skinny' is underweight.' I left it at fat that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 heartbeat chestbeat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 heartbeat chestbeat apparently <120/<80 is merely "normal" (healthy). just glad to be healthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 (edited) 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. So it was this environment that's responsible for your oft-stated desire to nationalize a massive sector of the economy and supplant voluntary interactions with control by a massive centralized bureaucracy, grant the government control over everyone's health care, and your desire to have the same entity micromanage all facets of human activity beyond simple respiration that generate C02 emissions? I realize that your signature debate style is to state your opponents position for them, so I'll give you some special treatment. Requiring reasonable fleet mileage standards, synchronizing stop lights, providing tax incentives for energy efficient vehicle/home/appliance purchases, building out public transportation, regulating industrial emmissions, and other government actions hardly constitute "micromanaging all facets of human activity beyond simple respiration". Providing a standardized single payer system for health care, with the amortization of health care risk for the individual, the ability to switch jobs and maintain continuous coverage, and the ENORMOUS bargaining advantage for drug purchases that would come with it, is a far cry from granting the government 'control over everyone's health care'. Similarly, the government licences and regulates businesses, but does not actually manage (or micromanage) them. As usual, you're grossly overstating your case. Oh, and while we're on that subject, how is that 'cost of regulating CO2 emissions verses the cost of doing nothing' analysis coming along? Edited October 23, 2007 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 A co-worker called me 'skinny'. I told her 'No, this is 'normal'. 'Skinny' is underweight.' I left it at fat that. yes, notions of normalcy are touchingly inane especially when they come from someone who rides the shortbus err the mentally challenged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtom Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I can't wait until the words "carbon footprint" are considered passe. I believe the more appropriate phrase for this discussion would be "carbon assprint". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizard_brain Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I can't wait until the words "carbon footprint" are considered passe. I believe the more appropriate phrase for this discussion would be "carbon assprint". Or methane assprint? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I can't wait until the words "carbon footprint" are considered passe. I believe the more appropriate phrase for this discussion would be "carbon assprint". Or methane assprint? fountain of CO2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 tub girl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 synchronizing stop lights preach that. and have fewer stop lights on arterials. people should be able to stomach the inconvenience of going an extra block or two to access an arterial for the sake of traffic flow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 synchronizing stop lights preach that. and have fewer stop lights on arterials. people should be able to stomach the inconvenience of going an extra block or two to access an arterial for the sake of traffic flow. CUE THE RETARD SEATTLEITES WANTING TO PRESERVE THEIR "RURAL" HERITAGE JUST BECAUSE YOU DRIVE A PICKUP TRUCK AND HAVE AN IQ LOWER THAN 70 DOESNT MEAN YOU LIVE IN THE STICKS DIPSHIT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Portland's Burnside St. is a beautiful example of a busy downtown street that flows well because of good planning and fewer "options" to turn & access it. It works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizard_brain Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Has a lot to do with fatties, I'm sure.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 CUE THE RETARD SEATTLEITES WANTING TO PRESERVE THEIR "RURAL" HERITAGE JUST BECAUSE YOU DRIVE A PICKUP TRUCK AND HAVE AN IQ LOWER THAN 70 DOESNT MEAN YOU LIVE IN THE STICKS DIPSHIT What was the TV show back in the late 60's to early 70's that depicted a logging operation outside of Seattle? I think that teen-throb singer was in it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Has a lot to do with fatties, I'm sure.... ITS THE STUPID PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY ARE SMART AND BETTER THAN EVERYONE THAT CONTINUE TO FUCK IT UP!! THEY SHOULD SHOOT THEMSELVES! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 don't do it, CJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.