oh no - Look Who's Running Boston marathon

unintended consequences wrote:

Glad I could bring the worst out of you, you insecure tools are so easily trolled.

Resorting to petty name calling? Nice. To maintain the high ground you actually have to, and this may come as a shock, rise above the petty actions you claim to disdain. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps in the process of human evolution we developed the intelligence to find a cure for cancer? That we should, perhaps, use that intelligence? People do not boil down to whether or not they are genetically predisposed to cancer or not. By not allowing those with a likely hood of contracting cancer to reproduce we could end up dramatically altering the gene pool in an unintended way. Those with a "cancer gene" may also possess great intelligence, or, and you may like this, running ability, and any other number of positive traits. Traits humanity may want to keep around just a little while longer.

Please do not attempt to hide behind the guise of a "troll." You may have been trying to get someone's goat but this is clearly a closely held opinion that you have developed over time and not a spur of the moment "troll" attempt. I apologize for any grammatical,spelling, or punctuation errors above.

How many times do we have to say it, dont feed the trolls. It only makes things worse

Country Mile wrote: Exactly, what is a country mile? Is it similar to a metric mile, or something completely different?[/quote]

questioner of questions wrote: A country mile is, colloquially, a distance that is much farther than an imperial mile.[/quote]

So, it is a wild exaggeration of length, much like penis length.

Humans have the intelligence to create nuclear weapons as well as innumerable toxins that contribute to developing cancer, yet apparently lack the intelligence to understand unintended consequences.

Not really, I could argue either side of almost anything, pro or con. That's why I'm an attorney. Running ability isn't necessarily a positive trait and I'm sure we have more than enough people with great intelligence who aren't susceptible to cancer that we would be find without those who are. If there is no genetic predisposition, then why does cancer show up more frequently in some families than it does in others? How can some people smoke their entire lives and be fine and others never smoke yet get lung cancer?

Also, a "likely hood" is someone who is predisposed to succumb to the enticing aspects of thug life.

A 2:26 marathon is fast. Faster than most posters here can run.

I think we should agree that a "country mile" is 1600 meters...

unintended consequences wrote:

Humans have the intelligence to create nuclear weapons as well as innumerable toxins that contribute to developing cancer, yet apparently lack the intelligence to understand unintended consequences.

You gain no credibility by attacking my intelligence. Ad hominem arguments are a fallacy. To effectively challenge my previous assertion you have to show where my argument falls short, and not, in your opinion, my intellect.

There is no debate that our actions can have unintended consequences, as evidenced innumerable times throughout history. I am simply trying to assert that your proposal that those with cancer should not be cured or those with a predisposition towards cancer should not be allowed to procreate could have unintended consequences of its own.

We're too emotional for our own good. Cancer is a product of nature, survival of the fittest is natural and interfering with and subverting that is not. Of course there are consequences, but in terms of what consequences are best for the overall health of the species, we have a bad habit of going against that. We've become too resistant to nature, we'll set ourselves up for a superdisease which will have its destructiveness catalyzed and magnified by how we've enabled weak genes to be retained.

Also, I'm not going to speculate why you believe otherwise, but I have yet to specifically attack your intelligence level.

Based on your response to my first post I have to say that I believe you are being disingenuous when you say that you never attacked my intelligence. Though you did not name me specifically the attack was implied. If that was truly not your intention though, I apologize and will not mention it again.

You may be right that we have become to resistant to "nature" in your definition, but what is "nature?" It is natural for those with cancer to want to survive, just as it is natural for them to want to procreate. Appealing to what is and isn't "natural" doesn't get us anywhere. There is not a person on the planet with out a genetic trait that the human race would be better off without. But if they all don't procreate then we cease to exist. Hooray! The human race will have no more week genes. It also will not pass on any strong ones. This is the heart of what i am getting at. Our genetic makeup is to complicated to imply that those with a "cancer gene" (I return to this because you made such a point of singling them out) should not be allowed to continue there hereditary line. They could just as easily turn around and point out a genetic weakness for you or I. Are you ready to put your life (or the potential lives of your children) where your mouth is for the "good" of humanity? Somehow I doubt it. Because good and bad genetics are intractably combined we cannot hope to rid ourselves of them. We can only act with compassion and empathy towards those who suffer in our world. Perhaps emotion is clouding my judgment, although wouldn't that be a natural response? One that evolution and survival of the fittest have bred into every human on the planet?

P.S. Not all cancer is hereditary. As you pointed out previosly it is often caused by external factors. Should we not attempt to cure those individuals at least?

doo doo wrote:

How many times do we have to say it, dont feed the trolls. It only makes things worse

You may be right and I apologize, the above post will be my last on the subject.

Her and Katie Holmes should go down on each other near mile 19.

Realist Man wrote:

I totally understand your point, it just sucks that Boston has come down to preferring celebrity over times.

I know 2:26 isn't very fast, I have no pipe dreams of being a pro runner.

I am fine with all of the races in the world preferring Valerie over me, but it was nice when Boston wasn't about charity runners and celebrity appearances.

You missed the deadline, they didn't "prefer" her over you. You failed to do a basic thing such as applying on time. You can't apply on time, but want them to care about time...yea

Manbearpig wrote:

Insane!!!! Funding 'Cancer research' is a bigger scam than Global Warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Eveyone knows that they already have a cure for cancer, but are making too much money on more 'research'.

This is all the fault of the same guys who have the car that gets 200 miles to a gallon of gas. You'll never see that either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, I know it's a joke post, BUT:

1. there is cure for cancer, known, tested. Check out DCA (more than 50% cured just in test phase), check out trials of dr Ornish (early prostate cancer reversed in 100% of cases). Two oficially tested treatments.

Why they aren't used? Money. DCA cost ~3$ for whole therapy, dr Ornish treatment is completely free (low fat vegan diet). Corporations ignore existing solutions, because they are cheap - and with existing cure for cancer they can't get money for research, they can't sell chemo. Keep dieing folks, and let them make money! And remember to vote for either Obama or McCain, all other candidates are crap!

2. There are existing cars able to get 150-200 miles with single galon of gas. One of them is known as Loremo. Cheap, safe, fast.

I recieved a email from the Boston Marathon people telling me that I was the first one out of the race because they had reached there limit. They had Proccesed my Regerstration and upon completion I got an email telling me they were sorry, there is no more room left in the marathon. I'm only 21 so there is plenty of time for me to still run in one.

But on the other hand they allow people from out of the country to get into the race without meeting the qualifying times and all they have to do is register for it. Also each year about 10,000- 15,000 people run the boston marathon with out even qualifying for it. I thought this race was to see who the best of the best marathon runners where, now its turned into who can give the most to charity to get a spot. there are people out there that there life time dream is compete in boston and they get the qualfying time and it might be there last chance ever to run it and they get kicked out cause of some charity runners. Come on, whats up with that.

Thats like telling USAIN BOLT that he can't compete in the olympics because some one raised 800 dollars for chairity and there giving his bib Number to them. What the beep is going on in this world now a days.

You would have done well in the 1930s in Germany.

It is amazing. I used to feel the same way about charity runners until my wife came down with brain cancer..

Now, I want any attention paid to it as I can...

I only mean that as an observation..I totally sympathize with the 2:26 guy and I used to be the BIGGEST critic of charity races until the chickens came home to roost...

Raise that money Valarie, but lets put it in brain tumor research!!!!!!

(I can't believe I would have ever even thought something like that!)

Why isn't MacKenzie running Boston? She has the body type and can get jacked up on enough cocaine to get her to the finish faster!

This will make you feel better

http://www.thepowerof10.info/rankings/rankinglist.aspx?event=Mar&agegroup=ALL&sex=M&year=2009