Tzadeck wrote:

positing

I liked that I typoed here (posting), but it's still a correct sentence with the same meaning.

IceCream wrote:

ta12121 wrote:

Raschaverak wrote:

This is only slightly related to my original topic, but if you've dated a girl, and she says ok, let's meet sometime again, you exchange a few text messages via cellphone, 1,5 week goes by, and the girl suddenly dissapears (will not return calls, nor messages) - why is that? I accept - not surprised, or anything - that she has changed her mind - but what really annoyes me to hell (this is actually good, as anger is better than depression ) why doesn't she say so?? She could just send a damn email or something - fair-and-square. But no... I've observed all women do this...is it just me, or the country, both, neither...or....I really don't get it. Ideas?

simple answer: girls are crazy (well most guys already know this one lol)
Or a better way of saying is: they are very indirect. But on the other hand,guys are direct. They will say in your face if your acting annoying,etc

loooool no way!!! this isn't restricted to girls, guys do this at least as much!!!

well, i think it's probably pretty much even for first date / one night stand type stuff to not take someone's calls or respond to messages afterwards. It's just that someone doesn't want to be impolite or mean to you. It's not really so much dishonesty, just learning to read the situation. On the other hand, if she was just busy for a while and you overdid the phonecalls or textmessages, she probably backed off for other reasons.

... while it's equal for that though, i've heard of way more guys who dump long standing girlfriends by text or email, and then never return their calls if they want to speak about it... or even don't bother even with that courtesy and just pointedly ignore them. i really rarely hear about girls doing that with long term boyfriends. That's just totally off, imo...

anyway, @Raschaverak, anger is just another negative emotion. it might be slightly better to be angry at other people rather than turning it in on yourself, but it's not likely to help you for long...

I agree that guys do this as well but a lot of the time, it's mostly for girls. Although it can go either way at times. Most of the time though, you'd hear about this happening with guys in a relationship. From my experience I had this happened in Highschool and then in college(kinda annoying a bit since the girl who liked me was older than me, so I wasn't sure how to handle saying: yea I don't like you but I know you like me. So I just didn't trying pursing or said anything to steer in that direction. So I can agree this thing can go both ways at times, but commonly girls do this more than guys (I think)

jettyke wrote:

"So I can agree this thing can go both ways at times, but commonly girls do this more than guys (I think)"

Maybe girls are less decisive and that's why.

Also busy people, or those who get lots of messages tend to be that way.

Makes sense

Tzadeck wrote:

The life expectancy in Britain in the 17th century was between 15-30, depending on your class and gender.  By 1961 the world average life expectancy was 67.

Drugs are the reason we live long enough to worry about long term effects.

You should really learn something about medical science before positing about it.  It sounds like you're just making shit up.

The We-live-longer argument is very weak. To be specific to the details in your argument, First of all, why did you choose to give life expect. in the 17th century? Why weren't you comprehensive and why didn't you give all the details and say what life expect. was in the rest of the centuries? What about in the BC era?  And why Britain? Why not other countries? Why compare Britain to the rest of the world? And the 17th century? Could that have been a time of EPIDEMICS or WAR that wiped out a bunch of people? Now to address the more general we-live-longer argument: Yes I know you're thinking- the medical advances like vaccines and anesthesia we made wiped out infectious diseases, right?  Well here's the thing...how do you REALLY KNOW that? How much can you contribute that to the drugs and how much could you contribute to factors you didn't even think of mentioning...like SANITATION, proper SEWAGE SYSTEM, and NUTRITION.  There definitely is evidence that communicable diseases like small pox, polio, tuberculosis were already on the downtrend before the vaccines came out to the market.  What caused the decline? Probably those tihngs in caps.

Here's where I will concede a point of modern medical marvels: emergency care and infant care.  This definitely has increased lifespan (if that's the endpoint we are debating on instead of discussing quality of life, a whole nother issue).  But let's use this situation to learn about statistics and how it deceives.  People smarter than me have explained that the MAIN reason why it LOOKS like we live so much longer today than our ancestors is due to infant mortality skewing the average. The statistics are such that, if you inspect the data to only look at people who lived past 2 or a certain childhood age I forgot, then the lifespans of our ancestors match pretty well with our own (still slightly less since modern drugs I admit do  delay death as opposed to prolonging life, but nowhere near the high disparity as implied in tzadek's numbers).  It's all those kids dying at the age of 0 that kills the average.  Again you can point to medicine to say "that proves my point", but again how do you know it's not the uncleanliness, the lack of nutrition, or other dangerous living conditions (predators) that can account for huge infant mortality in the past.  I think medicine plays a huge part, but we must not be so narrow minded and discount these other factors.

Hypothetically if you need to see numbers, here we have 5 ppl today and their ages of death. None are 0 since our infant moratlity care is so great:  50 60 70 80 90 with an average of 70.  Now let's take 5 ppl from back in the day when infant mortality wasn't so great and say 40% or so died before age 5:  70 70 60 0 5.  Here the average life expect. is 41   So the point is if you were fortunate to survive past a certain childhood age, you were very likely to live into long age.  The average numbers constantly cited by proponents of the we-live-longer-today argument are skewed averages and don't tell a complete picture, namely that of childhood death.

As a major in mathematical statistics in undergrad, I was never made aware of this stuff; you have to go to books like these to find out the specifics of how people deceive or how people are just vastly ignorant of statistical concepts that they get deceived: http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistic … 0393310728
My learning has been gradual but immensely beneficial.

I don't want to address the living-long versus living-well issue since I think this person does a good job and this has been a long post, but I hope the vid will deconstruct some of the cognitive dissonance so many uninformed people have:

-----is god/supernatural entity stupid? egg yolks, chicken skin, and bacon fat! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66J-GLa7sC8


I don't do this to win arguments, and it's possible I may be somewhat off as everyone's still learning; I do this because it's important information to release, I'm open to learning and don't accept things as true merely because authority tells me so

jettyke wrote:

Tzadeck wrote:

You should really learn something about medical science before positing about it.  It sounds like you're just making shit up.

I totally agree. I don't have much knowledge in that field but it seemed obvious to me that that post wasn't worth reading/believing.

I don't know what's up with the ad hominem attacks.  Sorry I didn't want to put too much details in a post since nobody would probably read it; i chose to put the synthesis of my readings and research.

In any case, I'm sure all of us should increase our knowledge in those fields so i'm glad for jettyke's honesty. Though, I'm perturbed that without anything substantial to back the counterclaim, my reasonable arguments concluded from much medical and statistical readings were attacked as worthless instead of questioned. Progress and science goes nowhere with mere attacks but by questioning where the claims come from.

So if the pharmaceutical industries are so great, is that why 2 former editors of the New England Journal of Medicine (The most prestigious Medical Journal in the world) wrote books cautioning  people about the deceitful drug industry:

"Angell, former editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, presents a searing indictment of "big pharma" as corrupt and corrupting: of Congress, through huge campaign contributions; of the FDA, which is funded in part by the very companies it oversees; and, perhaps most shocking, of members of the medical profession and its institutions. Angell delineates how the drug giants...pay physicians to prescribe their products with gifts. According to Angell, the cost of marketing, both to physicians and consumers, far outweighs expenditures on research and development, though drug makers invoke R&D as the reason drug prices are so high. In fact, says Angell, with combined 2002 profits of $35.9 billion for the Fortune 500's top 10 drug companies, the drug industry is America's most profitable by far, thanks to disproportionately high prices, generous tax breaks and manipulation of patents to extend exclusive marketing rights to blockbuster drugs"   http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Drug- … 0375508465


"'Some physicians become known as whores.' This is strong language in Kassirer's mostly temperate but tough look at how big business is corrupting medicine—but according to Kassirer, one doctor's wife used the word 'whore' to describe her husband's accepting high fees to promote medical products." Jerome Kassirer, former editor-in-chief of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine  http://www.amazon.com/Take-Medicines-Co … roduct_top

I second Javizzy's bashing on psychoanalysis.  I think the primary benefit from things like these is the placebo effect and the fact that you have someone you can vent to and will listen to you more so than the techniques used.  And the drugs help, but are they just treating the symptoms and not the underlying cause which i posit come from the hormonal system and therefore the nutrition and mental stability of the person?  It is just another way to get therapy tied to the big profits of the Big Pharma.  I'm not well-read in this field but I hear these big minds in this industry sit in a room grouping symptoms together in order to concoct a new mental disorder so they can list it in the huge DSM-IV reference book listing the mental diseases that psychiatrists use.

This guy is clearly bored and needs fun things to do in life, not medicine.

I have nothing to say but to be wary of the negative-placebo effects that can be caused by telling people they're ill and need medicating over the web. I don't know anything beyond this thread though...

Last edited by dizmox (2011 June 03, 2:54 pm)

Someone needs to chat with this guy on msn or skype or something.
A public thread doesn't seem to help.

IceCream wrote:

If, on the other hand, he's convinced by all the people who tell him not to, and ends up killing himself a few months down the line, how're you going to take responsibility?!?

The only person who is responsible for suicide is the person guilty of the cowardly murder. It is the most extreme expression of selfishness and ignorance to the rarity and privilege of human life.  We did not earn our body and so do not have the right to end its life.  It was paid for through years of pain and sacrifice by our parents among many others.  The emotional scars left in the survivors' lives after this crime never heal.

IceCream wrote:

I firmly beleive that he needs to go to the doctor, and that they will prescribe him medication, which will help him sort out his mental state and get back on track with life. If he goes, and tells the truth, and they decide something different, well, i was wrong, no harm done.

You could be a doctor with that attitude. There are so many non-chemical things without potentially dangerous side effects that he could try first. I find it sad they even get mentioned as anything other than a last resort. That's modern medicine though, isn't it? We could try to understand the reasons behind our pain and explore the possible ways of treating it, but we just throw drugs at the symptoms and hope there are no bad side-effects. Your headache will be back though; even if it takes time, and even if doesn't turn into the migraines that led you to medicate in the first place. You don't find a cure by treating symptoms in complete ignorance of their causes.

IceCream wrote:

honestly, it's pretty mucked up how many people are willing to tell others they don't need to see a doctor and belittle the idea, especially to tell people that are generally pretty vulnerable and willing to believe it's something they should sort out on their own in the first place.

icecream, you know what else is mucked up is twisting Javizzy and my words saying people should avoid medicine or not see a doctor because it doesn't help.  People should avoid medicine because there are other methods that actually solve the root fo the problem and don't just cover and address the symptoms. Plus the unnatural/foreigness of the chemicals will always do something negative longterm (that's def more of an opinion since how can you study a drug's effect long term? it's way too expensive)

The main reason we belittle seeing a doctor is we know 99% of them will prescribe the common antidepressant drugs which will **** with your natural hormonal system or the receptor system after a while.

Sad that I feel that I have to post it once again on this forum, but well...
Hope that a third time won't come.

jettyke wrote:

Sad that I feel that I have to post it once again on this forum, but well...
Hope that a third time won't come.
http://www.urshirts.com/images/bong_big.jpg

I thought that said: "Can we all just get a bang"