Flagpole, Asterix, 16x - isn't interesting how people use religion to hate and or look down on other people. Most often it is driven through some fear, which is supported by ignorance. Peter will never look at all the facts. He will selectively filter out certain facts in order to draw the conclusions that he wants.
voted for bush wrote:
Flagpole Willy wrote:Homosexuals are ADULTS who are attracted to other ADULTS of the same sex.
So are you saying teenagers can't be gay?
Yes, teenagers can be gay. Perhaps worded improperly on my part, but my point was that gays are NOT attracted to children.
This thread is ridiculous. There is so much hate and so little reason it is honestly difficult to read. Why don't you Christians act a little more loving and argue with some more sense and why don't you others stop making broad generalizations about "Bible-thumpers"? Then maybe we can get somewhere.
David Small wrote:
Flagpole, Asterix, 16x - isn't interesting how people use religion to hate and or look down on other people. Most often it is driven through some fear, which is supported by ignorance. Peter will never look at all the facts. He will selectively filter out certain facts in order to draw the conclusions that he wants.
Isn't it amazing how some people will distort the facts to show their bigotry?
Despite your slam on religion, I never claimed to be "religious." Since you're so big on the "facts"' here's your chance to prove yourself. Go copy and paste the facts where I claimed to use religion to look down on other people. Go on boy, the clock is ticking.
when are you due back in Boy's Town Piper?
1. So, are you saying that you aren't religious and that your perspective on homosexuality is not driven by religion?
2. While we're on the topic of facts, what facts do you have to show that most pedophiles are gay? I mean facts aside from your own supicions.
MN Chris, The research I've read says exactly the same. I said a person's set-point could be controlled to a point, but did not elaborate. Thanks for the addition.
Wait a minute !!! How has talking about fat turned into a gay issues debate ?
Where's the beef ?
I for one would like to see two things:
1. The reputable reference from which Peter's Piper claims most pedophiles are gay, and
2. Any reputable source that shows a causal link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
I have a funny feeling that I will be waiting a long time for those. Here's a link to a relatively short read on the topic:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
You will note that this is NOT a religious propaganda page. For those disinclined to read the entire article, I offer two paragraphs of note:
"Dr. Carole Jenny reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 269 cases in which an adult molester could be identified ? fewer than 1% (Jenny et al., 1994)."
"The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children."
Finally, I am continually amazed at the topic drift. We start out with obesity and wind up with pedophilia. So, can we conclude that if talking about obesity leads to talking about pedophilia, then talking to an obese person leads to talking to pedophiles, and finally, that being obese leads to pedophilia?
JimFiore wrote:
I am continually amazed at the topic drift. We start out with obesity and wind up with pedophilia. So, can we conclude that if talking about obesity leads to talking about pedophilia, then talking to an obese person leads to talking to pedophiles, and finally, that being obese leads to pedophilia?
Right! When what we should really be talking about is our favorite fast food joint.
Oh how I miss Burger Chef.
Burger Chef rocked! Thanks for the memory.
As far as this thread goes, if you are fat will you become gay and then molest children? I got lost.
This thread reminded me of an interesting article last week in The Mirror (UK daily newsaper)
THE 1950S FITTIES
Aug 5 2003
Why grandma was so much healthier than women today
By Lorraine Davidson, Health Correspondent
WOMEN 50 years ago were much leaner and fitter than their descendants today, according to new research.
They kept trim washing, cooking, ironing and cleaning without the aid of hi-tech appliances.
And they were far more energetic than their daughters and grand- daughters - despite the modern Bridget Jones-style regime of dieting and regular workouts in the gym.
As our table on the right shows, women in 1953 burned off at least twice the amount of calories - more than 1,000 a day. They also ate less - 1,818 calories a day compared with 2,178.
Modern women believe they are healthier than previous generations, with seven out of 10 saying they take better care of themselves.
But in reality they do far less exercise and consume far more calories - partly due to junk food.
In the 50s most meals came with vegetables. Women would devote around three hours a day to housework, walk about an hour a day to and from the shops - and spend at least an hour cooking. Now they have cars, freezers and microwaves.
Maire Fahey, editor of Prima magazine, which carried out the research, said: "We investigated the difference between life today and 50 years ago as a result of our recent survey which revealed women are neglecting their health.
"Obesity has soared in the past 50 years. And one of the reasons is our lifestyles involve much less physical activity. It just goes to show the importance of exercise in the battle to maintain a healthy balance." The research showed just one woman in seven is eating the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables a day.
Sports dietician Wendy Martinson said: "I'm not surprised we are using fewer calories. Modern technology has transformed our lives and we only have to expend a fraction of the energy our mothers did.
"That's why it is more necessary than ever to take regular exercise."
1950s
Vigorous housework
486 CALORIES
Walking to shops
216 CALORIES
Food preparation
180 CALORIES
Carrying a baby
126 CALORIES
2003
Gym exercise bike
288 CALORIES
Vacuum cleaning
90 CALORIES
Driving children
36 CALORIES
Watching TV
32 CALORIES
they really were the good old days!
anyone who gets as riled up about gays as Peter's Piper is obviously repressing some deeply seeded homosexual tendencies.
"word" to everything flagpole said before
I read all 5 pages of postings. Most of them I'll disregard.
These "studies" are used by health insurers and life insurers to raise rates rather than require potential cutomers to change their lifestyle. We aren't allowed to "discriminate" regarding things beyond the potential insured's control (for example, on the basis of sex, race, national origin, religion). It might be true that obesity is a direct response to percieved famine. It might be true that obesity is the result of sitting on our butts and supersizing everything. But it is also true that we get to make more money when we charge more for insurance.
What is the upside, you ask? Because of course the obese are more expensive to insure. Yes, but they are also more likely to die young. But not so young that their heirs collect on life insurance. They might buy a 20 year term policy when they are 35, then see the premiums quaduple when they turn 55, and cancel the policy. That way we (the insurers) get to keep all their premiums.
I see a risk here regarding the government's involvement in health insurance. Next thing we'll know, we'll be paying more taxes to fund an inadequate national health plan, and all those fat people needing bypass surgery will be having it paid for, as a "right," and when they die young, their kids and spouses will collect social security payments far exceedind what was paid in. (I'm in favor of social security for just that- the IDEA of social security so that people don't starve.
Maybe I'm a little off-base, and I'm tired after a long day, and a little angry with the really stupid gay-bible-republican-democrat-liberal-conservative arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with obesity and running. So we have this study. Now what? What can we learn from it, what kind of action strategy can we develop, before those of us in power (insurers and gov't beurocrats) run away with it?
PS not all insurance industry workers are jerks. Some are just in it for the money so that they can have an easy work schedule and keep running.
Basically, obesity will continue to run rampant in this country until their is a financial disincentive.
So are you going to cancel me if after years of paying overpriced premiums, I have to file one damn claim? What a bullshit industry.
Bazza: Can I infer from this that the obesity rates in the UK are climbing in parallel to the rates in the USA? Are childhood obesity rates climbing as well? Anybody have data on other "highly developed" countries? I was under the impression that this was one area in which the USA was a true "leader" among nations.
fatinsuranceagent wrote:
I see a risk here regarding the government's involvement in health insurance. Next thing we'll know, we'll be paying more taxes to fund an inadequate national health plan, and all those fat people needing bypass surgery will be having it paid for, as a "right," and when they die young, their kids and spouses will collect social security payments far exceedind what was paid in. (I'm in favor of social security for just that- the IDEA of social security so that people don't starve.
Next? We're there now. Right in the middle of it. Baby boomers and all their blood pressure and cholesterol meds, bypass surgery. So few of them will ever be told to make lifestyle changes - just take your Lipitor. The pharmaceutical companies love the fatties. Meanwhile it is robbing our children's future.......
Pete, I see the point with your smiley, but it is more the concept Trudeau expressed than anything else he may have said or been.
I think a good arguement could be made for him being at least 4 of your listed labels. Wonder how good a comparison could be made between him with the October crisis and the Bush gang post Sept 11/01.
Asterix,
care to elaborate on the parallels you infer...?
(have they found any WMD? I know that was never a factor for you personally, but I still wonder)