Is the health care reform racist? [Archive]

whottt

03-23-2010, 06:05 PM

I'm not joking.

White people are the ones that go to tanning salons. In particular white women.

Furthermore, there are health benefits of tanning. It protects from ultraviolet radiont. It gives the body vitamin d. Tanning is a much safer way of getting this health benefits than direct sunlight.

This part of the bill directly penalizes something that white people do, and pretty much only white people, for various heatlh reasons both psychological and physical.

Not only is it dicrimantory, it possibly will lead to worse health which can in turrn lead to more insurance claims. So it's irresponsible.

Futhermore, while I realize the tanning industry is one of the most corrupt and heartless monopolies in the United States...is it really wise to be discouraging business which will in turn hurt employment, given our current economic climate?

While it make look rather arbitary and the various white forum member libs still have enough money in their wallets to laugh about it...

It is discriminatory, because it directly targets a certain racial demographic. It is irresponsible on a variety levels.

And a 10% tax is a hefty fucking tax.

I want this part removed and replaced with something more arbitrary...say, a 10% tax on Tyler Perry comedies.

If poor and sickly people can't help they fact they are poor and sickly and impose their burden on those that aren't....how can white people be expected to help the fact they are sucptible to skin cancer and need extra protection from the suns rays?

Blake

03-23-2010, 07:28 PM

Furthermore, there are health benefits of tanning. It protects from ultraviolet radiont. It gives the body vitamin d. Tanning is a much safer way of getting this health benefits than direct sunlight.

do the health benefits outweigh the risks?

probably not.

But this is no surprise from you since you have been known to say smoking is good for you.

MannyIsGod

03-23-2010, 07:32 PM

:lmao

whottt

03-23-2010, 07:37 PM

Link to me saying smoking is good for you? I said it does have some health benefits, I didn't say it was good for you.

If you have no genetic tendency to develop cancer but a heavy tendency to develop parkinsons or alzheimers...it actually could be good for you.

I also didn't say tanning is good for you, I said it has health benefits. Health benefits that white people tend to be more in need of than people with darker skin.

Very few things are simply, good for you.

It seems you, are missing the chromosome that allows you to differentiate between health benefits and good for you so I have an idea that may help with the break through. Let's you and I meet...it can even be at a face slapping bar if you like...

Every time I smoke a cigarette, you simply drink a glass of water. I think the general consensus is that smoking is bad for you and water is good for you...I mean tobacco makes up no part of the human body whereas water makes up 60% of it. In fact you could say we are water and it wouldn't be a totally inaccurate statement.

But anyway, let's you and I meet, every time I smoke a cigarette, you drink a glass of water, and whoever goes to the hospital first loses the contest but gains a better understanding of the difference between health benefits, and good for you. I call it a win win...it'll be good for you.

I'll make a side bet of a years health insurance you wind up in the hospital first :tu

Mr. Peabody

03-23-2010, 08:02 PM

I think this provision is known as the Boehner Tax

http://blog.nassauweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/red-boehner2.jpg

Blake

03-23-2010, 08:09 PM

Link to me saying smoking is good for you? I said it does have some health benefits, I didn't say it was good for you.

That's right. You simply argued the hell out of how it "can" be good for you.

.......Son it also prevents or reduces the chance of getting alzheimers, parkinsons disease, breast cancer, some types of skin cancer and improves coginitive brain function, alertness and mental acuity.

Son that whole Parkinsons and Alzheimers thing is an important one son. While the idea of spending a couple of months coughing up blood on a morphine drip may seem like an awful death to you, spending the last 10 years of your life forgotten in a nursing home hoping someone will remember to change your diaper, feed you, or pick you up off the floor, that week, and being forcibly kept alive and imprisoned in your own body when every part of it, including your mind is telling you to die because it's not going to get any better, seems like a much worse way to go out to me. But to each their own. We all gotta die of something. ....................

right before you went Godwin's Law.

I also didn't say tanning is good for you, I said it has health benefits. Health benefits that white people tend to be more in need of than people with darker skin.

Very few things are simply, good for you.

It seems you, are missing the chromosome that allows you to differentiate between health benefits and good for you so I have an idea that may help with the break through. Let's you and I meet...it can even be at a face slapping bar if you like...

No thanks. I don't like my face slapped any more than I like second hand smoke blown in my face.

Just make it simple:

True or false: health benefits are good for you.

Every time I smoke a cigarette, you simply drink a glass of water. I think the general consensus is that smoking is bad for you and water is good for you...I mean tobacco makes up no part of the human body whereas water makes up 60% of it. In fact you could say we are water and it wouldn't be a totally inaccurate statement.

But anyway, let's you and I meet, every time I smoke a cigarette, you drink a glass of water, and whoever goes to the hospital first loses the contest but gains a better understanding of the difference between health benefits, and good for you. I call it a win win...it'll be good for you.

I'll make a side bet of a years health insurance you wind up in the hospital first :tu

Since you don't like to pay for health insurance, and I have a good cheap plan already, that bet is meaningless.

Had it been worth something, my glass of water would have contained one drop.

Obviously arguing semantics and smoking siggies helps you sleep at night. Yay for you :tu

Blake

03-23-2010, 08:19 PM

I think this provision is known as the Boehner Tax

http://blog.nassauweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/red-boehner2.jpg

According to whottt, Boehner possibly got some health benefits from tanning. It might protect him from ultraviolet radiation. It possibly gave his body vitamin d.

According to whottt, tanning is a much safer way of getting these health benefits than direct sunlight.

But make no mistake, whottt does not say that tanning is good for you. He is simply saying that the health care reform is racist.

Did I get that right?

whottt

03-23-2010, 08:34 PM

That's right. You simply argued the hell out of how it "can" be good for you.

Exactly right. You might be beginning to get it.

Kinda like having maggots in your body, CAN, be good for you. Does have some health benefits.

No thanks. I don't like my face slapped any more than I like second hand smoke blown in my face.

I'll sit in my car with the widows rolled up. I'll even smoke a joint while I am smoking the cigarette, and you can simply drink water.

Every breath I take, I will be inhanhaling smoke, first, second hand, you name it. Just the lesser of those acts, second hand smoke leaves you trembling in your boots wanting smoking to be outlawed. You want absolutely no part of it, I will be totally submerged in it.

Meanwhile, you will be doing something absoutely essential to life, not stigmatized in anyway and totally legal to do just about anywhere.

Not only will I win that contest, in at most 5 hours, if you continue until you are no longer capable o fit, you will be hospitalized almost certainly with some form of limited brain damage, more than likely fighting for your life.

I will simply get out of the car, and light up another cigarette.

Just make it simple:

True or false: health benefits are good for you.

That's a stupid true or false question...because it's not a true or false queston. Truse false questions are of absolutes, and neither that question, nor it's answer are an absolute.

It's like me asking you:

True or false: How many stars are in the sky.

Since you don't like to pay for health insurance, and I have a good cheap plan already, that bet is meaningless.

Had it been worth something, my glass of water would have contained one drop.

Obviously arguing semantics and smoking siggies helps you sleep at night. Yay for you :tu

Ironically enough, the last times I've discussed this is because you brought up. It's not something I spend a lot of time thinking about...I've already thought it you see.

spursncowboys

03-23-2010, 08:53 PM

http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/kerry-tan.jpg

DUNCANownsKOBE2

03-23-2010, 09:04 PM

Furthermore, there are health benefits of tanning. It protects from ultraviolet radiont.

No, it doesn't at all. Tanning beds use lamps that give off UV light just like the Sun does, only a much higher concentration. A body tanning is its' reaction to UV rays, there's no way to get a tan without exposure to UV rays. Tanning salons are not in any way whatsoever supposed to be a safe tanning substitute to sunlight, they're supposed to be a tanning source more powerful than the Sun is that can give you a tan quicker than the Suns does.

Not only is it dicrimantory, it possibly will lead to worse health which can in turrn lead to more insurance claims. So it's irresponsible.

No, it really can't. Tanning beds increase your risk for cancer a lot more than the Sun does. Please find a credible source that tanning beds produce any health benefits whatsoever.

how can white people be expected to help the fact they are sucptible to skin cancer and need extra protection from the suns rays?

Considering the International Agency for Research on Cancer has tanning beds in the highest cancer risk category, "carcinogenic to humans," I'd love to hear how people susceptible to skin cancer benefit from tanning beds.

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm186687.htm

God only knows where you got the idea tanning lamps don't emit any UV rays, but I'm impressed how you are able to continuously out do the last extremely retarded thing you said.

Blake

03-23-2010, 09:09 PM

Exactly right. You might be beginning to get it.

Kinda like having maggots in your body, CAN, be good for you. Does have some health benefits.

It's like how health care reform CAN be good for you. Does have some health benefits.

I'll sit in my car with the widows rolled up. I'll even smoke a joint while I am smoking the cigarette, and you can simply drink water.

Every breath I take, I will be inhanhaling smoke, first, second hand, you name it. Just the lesser of those acts, second hand smoke leaves you trembling in your boots wanting smoking to be outlawed. You want absolutely no part of it, I will be totally submerged in it.

Meanwhile, you will be doing something absoutely essential to life, not stigmatized in anyway and totally legal to do just about anywhere.

Not only will I win that contest, in at most 5 hours, if you continue until you are no longer capable o fit, you will be hospitalized almost certainly with some form of limited brain damage, more than likely fighting for your life.

I will simply get out of the car, and light up another cigarette.

I assume you meant an 8oz glass, but since you never stipulated the amount of water in my glass, I would win based on my one drop glass.

Let's flip the bet though. How about you go without water and I go without cigarettes and let's see who goes to the hospital first.

Water isn't straight up good for you according to whottt. It simply CAN be good for you.

That's a stupid true or false question...because it's not a true or false queston. Truse false questions are of absolutes, and neither that question, nor it's answer are an absolute.

It's like me asking you:

True or false: How many stars are in the sky.

I know. Asking if a health benefit is good for you can be a tricky question on a messageboard.

One would hate for that question to come back and bite him in the ass because there is no distinct "true or false" or "yes or no". There is only "it depends on how I need it to fit into my argument."

Ironically enough, the last times I've discussed this is because you brought up. It's not something I spend a lot of time thinking about...I've already thought it you see.

good for you, dooshbag.

EmptyMan

03-23-2010, 09:09 PM

stepping stone to taxing the sun's rays I tells ya

DUNCANownsKOBE2

03-23-2010, 09:11 PM

I'll sit in my car with the widows rolled up. I'll even smoke a joint while I am smoking the cigarette, and you can simply drink water.

Every breath I take, I will be inhanhaling smoke, first, second hand, you name it. Just the lesser of those acts, second hand smoke leaves you trembling in your boots wanting smoking to be outlawed. You want absolutely no part of it, I will be totally submerged in it.

Meanwhile, you will be doing something absoutely essential to life, not stigmatized in anyway and totally legal to do just about anywhere.

Not only will I win that contest, in at most 5 hours, if you continue until you are no longer capable o fit, you will be hospitalized almost certainly with some form of limited brain damage, more than likely fighting for your life.

I will simply get out of the car, and light up another cigarette.

No surprise why you're a janitor at taco bell.

Blake

03-23-2010, 09:15 PM

I'll do my best whottt impersonation here...

ready?

No, it doesn't at all. Tanning beds use lamps that give off UV light just like the Sun does, only a much higher concentration. A body tanning is its' reaction to UV rays, there's no way to get a tan without exposure to UV rays. Tanning salons are not in any way whatsoever supposed to be a safe tanning substitute to sunlight, they're supposed to be a tanning source more powerful than the Sun is that can give you a tan quicker than the Suns does.

but UV rays CAN be good for you.

No, it really can't. Tanning beds increase your risk for cancer a lot more than the Sun does. Please find a credible source that tanning beds produce any health benefits whatsoever.

tanning beds CAN give you protection from those same UV rays that actually CAN be good for you.

Considering the International Agency for Research on Cancer has tanning beds in the highest cancer risk category, "carcinogenic to humans," I'd love to hear how people susceptible to skin cancer benefit from tanning beds.

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm186687.htm

so why are you taxing the people that aren't susceptible to skin cancer?

God only knows where you got the idea tanning lamps don't emit any UV rays, but I'm impressed how you are able to continuously out do the last extremely retarded thing you said.

you fool!

I only said tanning beds CAN give you health benefits. And health benefits CAN be good for you.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

03-23-2010, 09:19 PM

:lmao

whottt

03-23-2010, 09:27 PM

God only knows where you got the idea tanning lamps don't emit any UV rays, but I'm impressed how you are able to continuously out do the last extremely retarded thing you said.

The only thing retarded is your claim that I said tanning beds don't emit UV. Where did I say that?

Don't call me the retard when you're the one claiming I said tanning beds don't emit UV radiation. I said tanning protects against UV rays. Which it does. Medical fact.

It's called limited exposure and is very similar to the concept behind just about every vaccine there is you idiot.

And of course I looked this shit up. I did it before I made the post. Here you go you stupid fucking douchebag:

http://www.womentowomen.com/healthynutrition/vitamindandtanningbeds.aspx

That explains the negatives as well as the positives and how the existing negatives can be turned into even greater positives.

You're welcome, retard.

BRHornet45

03-23-2010, 09:36 PM

its funny how Pelosi allowed the Botox industry off the hook. people forget that originally Reid had a 5% tax on botox, but thanks to the corrupt lobbyist and pharmaceutical companies they were able to get off the hook. not to mention the fact that Pelosi is obviously a huge fan of botox. the reason they were excluded is because they claimed it was discriminating towards older white women .... hmmm so let me get this straight ... taxing botox is discriminating towards older white women, so they replace it with a 10% tax on the indoor tanning industry? who the fuck do they think uses tanning beds!? lol ...

It is estimated that the 5% tax on botox would have brought in over $5.8 billion over 10 years. now they estimate that the 10% tax on indoor tanning will only bring in $2.7 billion over the next 10 years. Regardless if you use tanning beds or not you can't deny the facts. This is a VERY racist tax aimed at small business owners. Also its funny to me how they act as if the indoor tanning industry is a huge business to begin with ... all the ones that I see look like hole in the wall small businesses lol. Once again the small business owners will foot the bill. what's next? a tax for beach visitors?

DUNCANownsKOBE2

03-23-2010, 09:48 PM

The only thing retarded is your claim that I said tanning beds don't emit UV. Where did I say that?

If tanning beds emit UV rays how on god's green Earth do they protect against UV rays.

Don't call me the retard when you're the one claiming I said tanning beds don't emit UV radiation.

This is coming from the person who claims tanning beds protect against the very thing they emit.

I said tanning protects against UV rays. Which it does. Medical fact.

Nowhere in that article you posted does it say tanning beds protect against UV rays, and it's anywhere from a medical fact. I'll never post again if you can find a credible medical source that says tanning beds "protect you from UV rays".

It's called limited exposure and is very similar to the concept behind just about every vaccine there is you idiot.

[quote=whottt;4178460]And of course I looked this shit up. I did it before I made the post. Here you go you stupid fucking douchebag:

http://www.womentowomen.com/healthynutrition/vitamindandtanningbeds.aspx

Can tanning beds offer the same health benefits as sunshine? Specifically, are tanning booths a safe source of vitamin D? Tanning salons might like you to think so, but don’t be fooled. Indoor tanning is not an advisable source of vitamin D. The reason lies in the characteristics of ultraviolet light rays, and how these rays affect the body.

This site specifically says "don't be fooled" by tanning salons wanting you to think they are a good source of vitamin C. More or less, the site says tanning salons don't do shit for your health. Also, regarding your racist claim:

Remember, 15–20 minutes of sunshine a day, several times per week, provides sufficient UVB absorption for most Caucasians to optimize their vitamin D levels; however, the darker your skin, the more time you need.

So African American people need more exposure to sunlight to attain proper vitamin D levels, so if tanning beds were to ever be used for vitamin D purposes, black people would use them just as much, if not more, than white people.

That explains the negatives as well as the positives and how the existing negatives can be turned into even greater positives.

You're welcome, retard.

Nowhere does it give any positive reasons for sun tanning. The main point was to dispute the claim tanning beds are a good source of vitamin D.

whottt

03-23-2010, 09:55 PM

It's like how health care reform CAN be good for you. Does have some health benefits.

Sure. It can also be a health tax, which can lead to stress, which most decidedly is not good for you.

Medical fact on stress, and stress is in the eye of the beholder.

I assume you meant an 8oz glass, but since you never stipulated the amount of water in my glass, I would win based on my one drop glass.

I guess it's just in your character to cheat.

I don't guess you're bright enough to realize I would combat that by just smoking a smaller cigarette since I didn't stipulate the size of the cigarette.

Let's flip the bet though. How about you go without water and I go without cigarettes and let's see who goes to the hospital first.

Why should we flip it, I'm not the one operating under the chilkdlike absolute thought delusion that things are simply good or bad. Period. Always.

You are.

The same chromosomal shortage that lead to you being incapable of grasping the difference between health benefits and good for you is why you fail to see that is an incomparably stupid bet that has basically nothing to do with your inability to grasp simple concepts or freeing you from childlike conceptualizing of absolutes.

Water is considered good for you, therefore by your absolute logic it always good for you and there are no negatives to consuming it. Smoking is bad for you, therefore it is always bad for you and there are no postives to it.

This is the oversimplistic and chidlike stupid frame reference you operate under, not I.

Since I believe pretty much everything has positives and negatives I would prove nothing I claim by going without water unless I had drunk too much of it or it was sewage or something like that.

Otoh, by you drinking water and me smoking until one of us is hospitalized, you would indeed learn that good for you is not an absolute statement and you would no longer ask stupid non-absolute questions expecting absolute answers. All the while mistaking it for some sort of challenging intellecual exercise.

Water isn't straight up good for you according to whottt. It simply CAN be good for you.

Put your money where your mouth...if water simply good for you, you should be able to win this bet.

Water=Good
Smoking=Bad

Such is the stupid and inaccurate world view of Blake...

I know. Asking if a health benefit is good for you can be a tricky question on a messageboard.

Yes because there are lots of stupid people that don't understand simple answers that a typical 10 year old has the cognitive ability to grasp. And you don't want to fuck them up any worse than fate aleady has by giving them an answer they likely won't understand and apparently that is just about any answer you will give.

There are many such people on message boards, they destroy message boards with their stupidity and migrate to other boards, sticking out like a very sore and stupid thumb :tu

Now you know.

One would hate for that question to come back and bite him in the ass because there is no distinct "true or false" or "yes or no". There is only "it depends on how I need it to fit into my argument."

Maybe so but at least I'm not the guy backing down from my own claims of absolute good for you and bad for you.

That would be you. Backing away from it 100%. Keep backing up and maybe you'll wind up back at SR...where you are no doubt, one of the smart ones.

Which explains so much.

Sadly.

BRHornet45

03-23-2010, 09:57 PM

son this isn't about tanning being good or bad for you. everyone has their opinions on that subject. this is about a 10% tax being added to their industry. its simply not fair and is discriminating towards light skin people. why don't they add an additional tax to the fast food industry? that shit is horrible for you and has done nothing but exploded obesity in the U.S. ... we could argue about this all day long.

BRHornet45

03-23-2010, 10:00 PM

oh and since roughly 95% of those who use tanning services are white, then its perfectly ok and not racist.

whottt

03-23-2010, 10:23 PM

Supposedly fried chicken is pretty bad for you generally. Maybe they'll put a tax on that. Arbitrarily. :tu

Blake

03-23-2010, 10:35 PM

Sure. It can also be a health tax, which can lead to stress, which most decidedly is not good for you.

Medical fact on stress, and stress is in the eye of the beholder.

But it can also lead to health benefits.

I guess it's just in your character to cheat.

:lol Cheating?

I use the rules given to the fullest extent. It's not my fault your rules failed you.

I don't guess you're bright enough to realize I would combat that by just smoking a smaller cigarette since I didn't stipulate the size of the cigarette.

Based on the surgeon general stating that there really is no safe amount of cigarette smoke, I'd still lay odds that you will be in the hospital sooner, even if it takes a few more decades to accomplish that feat.

I don't guess you're bright enough to realize you're bet is now basically a waste of time.......unless you actually enjoy rolling up the car windows and having yourself a smoke in.

Why should we flip it, I'm not the one operating under the chilkdlike absolute thought delusion that things are simply good or bad. Period. Always.

You are.

I am not and I have not said I believe in absolutes.

You are absolutely a liar though.

The same chromosomal shortage that lead to you being incapable of grasping the difference between health benefits and good for you is why you fail to see that is an incomparably stupid bet that has basically nothing to do with your inability to grasp simple concepts or freeing you from childlike conceptualizing of absolutes.

see above.

Water is considered good for you, therefore by your absolute logic it always good for you and there are no negatives to consuming it. Smoking is bad for you, therefore it is always bad for you and there are no postives to it.

I shit on our educational system a lot, but I'm not shitting on it as much as you currently are.

Are you seriously trying to say that is my logic?

This is the oversimplistic and chidlike stupid frame reference you operate under, not I.

Since I believe pretty much everything has positives and negatives I would prove nothing I claim by going without water unless I had drunk too much of it or it was sewage or something like that.

Otoh, by you drinking water and me smoking until one of us is hospitalized, you would indeed learn that good for you is not an absolute statement and you would no longer ask stupid non-absolute questions expecting absolute answers. All the while mistaking it for some sort of challenging intellecual exercise.

Put your money where your mouth...if water simply good for you, you should be able to win this bet.

Water=Good
Smoking=Bad

Such is the stupid and inaccurate world view of Blake...

this is the horribly overreaching generalizing messageboard view of whottt

Yes because there are lots of stupid people that don't understand simple answers that a typical 10 year old has the cognitive ability to grasp. And you don't want to fuck them up any worse than fate aleady has by giving them an answer they likely won't understand and apparently that is just about any answer you will give.

There are many such people on message boards, they destroy message boards with their stupidity and migrate to other boards, sticking out like a very sore and stupid thumb :tu

Now you know.

There's also an unspoken level of common sense that water at some point can be too much to consume and that 2+2=4.

You are trying to twist this into me not knowing that 2+2=4 when it's you that's simply playing a semantics game so that everything will fit into your argument or that you try to leave yourself a back door to slip out of.

Common sense and common posting decency on a messageboard says that when a poster says "water is good for you" that we all know that there's a limit to the goodness.

You're a dooshbag for taking it to the extreme limits of absoluteness.

Maybe so but at least I'm not the guy backing down from my own claims of absolute good for you and bad for you.

That would be you. Backing away from it 100%. Keep backing up and maybe you'll wind up back at SR...where you are no doubt, one of the smart ones.

Which explains so much.

Sadly.

I'm not backing away from any claims. Water really CAN be good for you. There CAN be smart posters at SR. There CAN be ridiculous posters here.

Blake

03-23-2010, 10:44 PM

oh and since roughly 95% of those who use tanning services are white, then its perfectly ok and not racist.

I'd agree that the botox people had more lobby power, but I don't see it as racist.

Whose idea was it to put the tanning tax in to begin with?

BRHornet45

03-23-2010, 10:45 PM

I'd agree that the botox people had more lobby power, but I don't see it as racist.

Whose idea was it to put the tanning tax in to begin with?

Harry Reid and Obama ...

oh and the botox industry OF COURSE had people lobbying for them son. the pharmaceutical companies would have lost BILLIONS in revenue if they would have got taxed. the tanning industry doesn't have anywhere near the amount of lobbyist fighting for them because it is an industry of small business owners. not rich doctors, hospitals, etc.

whottt

03-23-2010, 10:59 PM

Blake

03-23-2010, 10:59 PM

Harry Reid and Obama ...

so you are saying Harry Reid is racist against whites?

Blake

03-23-2010, 11:06 PM

*snip*

Nothing personal, I've explained it in the most simple terms possible and even offered to prove it in terms you could understand. I know without reading that too thoroughly that you still don't get it. I've done all I can to help. You don't want help. So there's not any point in any discussion with you.

Hopefully you'll seek help traversing the maze of the pre-analytical world to the light that lies beyond the object permanence stage, and hopefully they'll be able to help you.

You want to play semantics games so that you have an out for your arguments and can claim "I never 100% said that".....just as you have done in this thread and others.

I get it perfectly.

:lmao sense is never common in a dicussion with you. I'm sorry.

Obviously you fail at deciphering simple phrases such as "water is good for you."

I'm sorry I actually had to explain it to you as everyone else but you seems to get it.

whottt

03-23-2010, 11:11 PM

:lol

Blake

03-23-2010, 11:17 PM

:lol

:lmao

whottt

03-23-2010, 11:18 PM

:sleep

Blake

03-23-2010, 11:21 PM

:sleep

:lmao

whottt

03-23-2010, 11:23 PM

Blake

03-23-2010, 11:29 PM

.

..

whottt

03-23-2010, 11:37 PM

www.spursreport.com

Blake

03-23-2010, 11:41 PM

www.spursreport.com

is this type of communication easier for you to handle than what you'd find at SR?

ElNono

03-23-2010, 11:42 PM

I said tanning protects against UV rays. Which it does. Medical fact.

:lmao

Trainwreck2100

03-23-2010, 11:45 PM

:lmao

if your skin is already burned then you can't get double burned? The logic is sound

ElNono

03-23-2010, 11:47 PM

if your skin is already burned then you can't get double burned? The logic is sound

File it under the popular myths category:
What You Know About Tanning May Not Be True (http://www.easy-tanning.com/tanningbeds/tanning-myths/popular-myths/what-you-know-about-tanning-may-not-be-true.htm)

Tanning protects your skin.
Most people believe that tanning protects you from sunburn. This is based on the explanation that tanning does not allow the UV rays to pass through the skin and acts as natural protection against sunburn. However, tanned skin does not have any external protective layer to protect you from UV rays. Understand that tanned skin is just darkened skin and cannot protect your skin in anyway.

Blake

03-23-2010, 11:49 PM

File it under the popular myths category:
What You Know About Tanning May Not Be True (http://www.easy-tanning.com/tanningbeds/tanning-myths/popular-myths/what-you-know-about-tanning-may-not-be-true.htm)

Tanning protects your skin.
Most people believe that tanning protects you from sunburn. This is based on the explanation that tanning does not allow the UV rays to pass through the skin and acts as natural protection against sunburn. However, tanned skin does not have any external protective layer to protect you from UV rays. Understand that tanned skin is just darkened skin and cannot protect your skin in anyway.

no, whottt said it's a medical fact that tanning CAN protect against UV rays......right, whottt?

ElNono

03-24-2010, 12:01 AM

no, whottt said it's a medical fact that tanning CAN protect against UV rays......right, whottt?

We've all been wrong here or there. Let it go, it's not a big deal.

About the tax, well, it's not the first industry that gets taxed for providing a service/product that's deemed unhealthy. I believe it won't be the last either.
As a former smoker, I can tell you that using monetary penalties as deterrent didn't really work in my case. I eventually stopped for different reasons.

Blake

03-24-2010, 12:04 AM

We've all been wrong here or there. Let it go, it's not a big deal.

na, I just want to be clear for future reference.

BRHornet45

03-24-2010, 12:09 AM

About the tax, well, it's not the first industry that gets taxed for providing a service/product that's deemed unhealthy. I believe it won't be the last either.
As a former smoker, I can tell you that using monetary penalties as deterrent didn't really work in my case. I eventually stopped for different reasons.

son the point is that this is a tax SPECIFICALLY AIMED at white people. The money received from this tax is going to help MAJORITY other races. it was a very sneaky move by the Obama administration to add an extra tax to white people.

Trainwreck2100

03-24-2010, 12:12 AM

File it under the popular myths category:
What You Know About Tanning May Not Be True (http://www.easy-tanning.com/tanningbeds/tanning-myths/popular-myths/what-you-know-about-tanning-may-not-be-true.htm)

Tanning protects your skin.
Most people believe that tanning protects you from sunburn. This is based on the explanation that tanning does not allow the UV rays to pass through the skin and acts as natural protection against sunburn. However, tanned skin does not have any external protective layer to protect you from UV rays. Understand that tanned skin is just darkened skin and cannot protect your skin in anyway.

it was sarcasm, i was going to say your cancer can't cet cancer but that would have been too obvious.

And they dont just tax unhealthy things, i think its stupid they tax gym memberships now amd have for the last couple years.

Trainwreck2100

03-24-2010, 12:13 AM

son the point is that this is a tax SPECIFICALLY AIMED at white people. The money received from this tax is going to help MAJORITY other races. it was a very sneaky move by the Obama administration to add an extra tax to white people.

son you know black people would tan if they could, if you want to blame someone blame god for making them untanable.

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 12:54 AM

Is tanning a luxury or a necessity?

whottt

03-24-2010, 01:19 AM

Hmmm....

I made a very specific statement. I have said it consistently throughout this thread.

The statement is simply this: Tanning protects you from UV radiation/rays. Or radiadont(typo) originally.

Now Duncanownskobe reinterpreted that to my saying tanning beds don't emit UV radiation.

El Nono reinterpreted it to my saying, tanning puts some kind of layer that protects your skin externally and that dark skin can't be burned. Or some kind of shit like that...I'm not quite sure what his interpretation whas so I'm not going to claim to know that, I just know he didn't refute my point and that link doesn't disprove it so he can take his feeble attempt at being magnanimous about disproving his own failed interpretation of what I said...and stick it up his dumb ass.

And blake, well blake reinterprets "some health beneifts" to "totally and wholly good for you with absolutely no negative effects of any kind whatsoover".

What I said, for the 3rd time...and please take note:

I am not saying tanning beds do not emit UV rays, duncanownskobe. - and you get the prize for the stupidest reinterpretation.

I am not saying tanning puts some kind of external covering on your skin that protects it from sunburn and dark skin doesn't get sunburned, El Nono.

I am not saying it is totally and wholly good for you with absolutely no negative effects whatsoever, blake.

What I am saying, pretty clearly I think...is tanning protects your skin from UV radiation.

It is a medical fact it does. And I can prove it.

I am saying clearly and succinctly, tanning protects your skin from UV rays/ radiation or however you want to put that part of it.

Medical Fact.

Read it, avoid putting it through the stupid filters in your brains...just read it for what it is.

And then I want you to say to yourselves, we are stupid fucking idiots incapable of reading words in front of us. We reinterpret them to mean something the person did not say, we then refute our own reinterpreations, and this, and no other reason, is why whottt correctly refers to us as idiots.

whottt

03-24-2010, 01:23 AM

Is tanning a luxury or a necessity?

What about Tyler Perry comedies?

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 01:25 AM

Unknown to me. But TV is clearly a necessity.

whottt

03-24-2010, 01:27 AM

son the point is that this is a tax SPECIFICALLY AIMED at white people. The money received from this tax is going to help MAJORITY other races. it was a very sneaky move by the Obama administration to add an extra tax to white people.

He's an Argie. Even their rightwingers are card carrying commies by American Standards. And I actually think he is a an Argie version of a rightwinger. Their lefties make Obama look like Pat Robertson....Che Guevera himself being an Argie.

whottt

03-24-2010, 01:27 AM

Unknown to me. But TV is clearly a necessity.

He makes movies, and does concerts too.

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 01:46 AM

Solid bank, sounds like. Bully on him.

Do you like him, whottt?

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 01:50 AM

I do get your point that it's a matter of perspective, hence the Jersey Shore reference upstream, for example.

whottt

03-24-2010, 01:56 AM

I don't think he's funny at all, but he's extremely popular with blacks and I have absolutely no idea why. Then again, I'm not black.

You could probably pay for a substantial portion of of the estimated cost of the health care reform by taxing his comedies.

Way more popular than tanning salons are IMO.

LnGrrrR

03-24-2010, 03:04 AM

Whottt, ElNono wasn't saying it puts an extra covering on your skin or that it prevents you from being sunburned. I believe he was trying to say that there's no evidence that a tan can help prevent future sunburns in any way.

Also, absorbing UV rays in small doses to prevent being harmed by a larger dose is pretty asinine, considering we have things like sunblock. Trying to avoid UV rays at all using sunblock, shade, etc is much more effective at preventing cancer.

whottt

03-24-2010, 05:33 AM

Whottt, ElNono wasn't saying it puts an extra covering on your skin or that it prevents you from being sunburned. I believe he was trying to say that there's no evidence that a tan can help prevent future sunburns in any way.

Well since I said, tanning protects you from UV rays/radiation, at least 5 times now...and I said nothing about sunburns, you can see why his post was moot. I mean you can see that right? And then once you accept that, you can surely understand why his comment about everybody being wrong rubbed me the wrong way.

Bad assumption on his part. And you know what happens when you ass u me?

I still stand by my statement, tanning protects you from UV radiation.

Also, absorbing UV rays in small doses to prevent being harmed by a larger dose is pretty asinine, considering we have things like sunblock. Trying to avoid UV rays at all using sunblock, shade, etc is much more effective at preventing cancer.

Well I don't agree with that. I think we are a species pretty much perfectly adapted to this planet, I think that is a huge reason why we became the dominant species on this planet, and believe it or not, I don't believe we were born as a species with artificial sun screen on us. I also don't believe we born as a species in buildings with AC and UV protection.

In fact I believe we born as a species with a highly effective if not totally invincible adaptation for protecting ourselves from the Sun's UV rays known as melanin. Melanin absorbs UV rays and converts them into heat. This is why sunburns are hot. It's not the that burn stays hot for 10 days afterward because it's still from being in the sung, it's the melanin in your body converting the absorbed UV radiation to heat that makes them hot.

Melanin is produced when UV rays, any kind of UV rays, interact with your skin. However it takes time to produce it and you can burn and absorb harmful rays while that is happening. In a controlled situation, that is not as much the case.

It is capable of dissappating 99% of absorbed UV radiation. Whether it is produced in a tanning bed or not. The difference is that in a tanning bed the type of UV rays can be almost totally controlled and the most harmful rays virtually eliminated.

So you can see...obviously, when I said, tanning protects you from UV radiation....I wasn't saying tanning beds did not have UV radiation, in fact they pretty much have to UV radiation for my point be true.

You can see why I didn't say it protects from sunburn, because in fact the biochemical process I was speaking off has little or nothing to do with actual skin burn, and in fact increases the heat level and burn sensation involved.

However, it does protect you from UV rays at a pretty much unmatched degree that is taken for granted by just about every human on the planet.

So I'm sorry...but tanning does protect you from UV rays.

Medical.
Fact.

LnGrrrR

03-24-2010, 05:50 AM

I still stand by my statement, tanning protects you from UV radiation.

Let's follow the line of logic.

Tanning is CAUSED by UV rays/radiation. Therefore, it PROTECTS you from UV radiation.

Sunburns ARE a negative side effect associated with too much UV radiation.

The question then is: how much does tanning protect one from future UV radiation damage?

[
Melanin is produced when UV rays, any kind of UV rays, interact with your skin. However it takes time to produce it and you can burn and absorb harmful rays while that is happening. In a controlled situation, that is not as much the case.

Which do you think would ultimately prove less harmful?

1)Relying solely on melanin/tanning to absorb some percentage of harmful rays

2) Doing your best to avoid harmful rays through clothing, shade or sunblock to lessen the amount of UV rays your skin has to absorb

It is capable of dissappating 99% of absorbed UV radiation. Whether it is produced in a tanning bed or not. The difference is that in a tanning bed the type of UV rays can be almost totally controlled and the most harmful rays virtually eliminated.

Are you saying that tanning beds produce different UV rays than the sun? Not sure what you're saying.

So you can see...obviously, when I said, tanning protects you from UV radiation....I wasn't saying tanning beds did not have UV radiation, in fact they pretty much have to UV radiation for my point be true.

Again, your statement of "Tanning causes UV radiation protecting you from UV radiation" certainly isn't clear without some qualifying statement. I know you compared it to vaccines earlier; I see what you're getting at. Just stating that the above does not read clearly.

ElNono

03-24-2010, 07:46 AM

Whottt, ElNono wasn't saying it puts an extra covering on your skin or that it prevents you from being sunburned. I believe he was trying to say that there's no evidence that a tan can help prevent future sunburns in any way.

He was already challenged to provide a credible medical source supporting his contention that "tanning beds protects you from UV rays". You know, the alleged Medical fact (:lol)

What you're going to get instead is the runaround, trailer park science, strawman, moving of the goalposts, a schtick or two, perhaps Godwin's law, insults and all that jazz from somebody that seems to think he's clever and educated. His act is old and tired, and at this point, it personally bores me.

But you should absolutely feel free to engage in mindless conversation if that's your thing.

whottt

03-24-2010, 07:47 AM

Let's follow the line of logic.

Tanning is CAUSED by UV rays/radiation. Therefore, it PROTECTS you from UV radiation.

Yes because the tanning is a result of the body protecting itself from UV radiaton. And it's possible to expose yourself to it at low levels and be better protected from it at higher levels because of doing so. That's why the body does it. It is an adaptation to this planet. The ability to go from having very light skin to darker skin is also an adapation. It is skin that is adapatable to hot brighter climates where the ability to block or convert UV ray to heat is needed for survival, and also adaptable to colder lighter environments where the ability to absorb UV is needed for survival.

So if Huge Chavez were truly smart he would shut the fuck up about global warming and start sending us all the free oil he can pump.

Sunburns ARE a negative side effect associated with too much UV radiation.

Really?

The question then is: how much does tanning protect one from future UV radiation damage?

That's not my question. And I'd say well enough to serve us as the primary means of protection for 99.99 % of our existence.

Which do you think would ultimately prove less harmful?

1)Relying solely on melanin/tanning to absorb some percentage of harmful rays

2) Doing your best to avoid harmful rays through clothing, shade or sunblock to lessen the amount of UV rays your skin has to absorb

Sunscreen has been shown to cause cancer. It is not natural, it is not a result of adaptation to this planet...it is the result of some idiots saying, here, buy this shit, it'll protect you from skin cancer, and then it turns around and actually causes skin cancer. That is how smart we are. This is also incidentally, why I don't particularly like Doctors sticking fucking pills in my face saying here, this is good for you, better than than plant we used for 200,000 years, even though it's made from that plant. And that in turn is why I am kinda of pissed off about the government telling me, hey, you have to go to these guys giving the shit out.

I have zero intention of covering my body from head to toe in clothing so thefore melanin will be a requirement. And I never said anything about relying soley on melanin.

However since I' don't like pills, I will choose the good old sun or low level UV rays as provided by tanning beds to produce melanin.

Are you saying that tanning beds produce different UV rays than the sun? Not sure what you're saying.

No, the Sun produces just about every type of UV ray there is, some more harmful than others and including any kind you can get in a tanning bed, Tanning beds can actually control of the UV rays you get the most of, so that the least damaging ones and ones with other helpful side effects beyond producing melanin are the primary ones you receive, and any of them will cause your body to produce melanin to provide a lasting(but not permanent) ability to convert UV rays to heat.

Again, your statement of "Tanning causes UV radiation protecting you from UV radiation" certainly isn't clear without some qualifying statement.

That wasn't my statement. My statement was tanning protects you from UV radiation. Simple as that. It does. It protects you from UV radiation.

I can say it 1 million times and it will be true every time I say it.

Medical.
Fact.

I know you compared it to vaccines earlier; I see what you're getting at. Just stating that the above does not read clearly.

Ok fine but at no point did I say it prevents sunburn. Although...I actually do think it does protect from sunburn. damn sure it does now that I think about it. And the fact that is even considered debatable, blog link or not, pretty much leads me to the conclusion that you and El Nono are dark complected. And have pretty much had the same threshold for burning your entire lives.

ElNono

03-24-2010, 07:48 AM

son the point is that this is a tax SPECIFICALLY AIMED at white people. The money received from this tax is going to help MAJORITY other races. it was a very sneaky move by the Obama administration to add an extra tax to white people.

Son, we all know that the money eventually goes back to the white bankers that can afford to get a tan anyways. :lol

whottt

03-24-2010, 07:48 AM

He was already challenged to provide a credible medical source supporting his contention that "tanning protects you from UV rays". You know, the alleged Medical fact (:lol)

What you're going to get instead is the runaround, trailer park science, strawman, moving of the goalposts, a schtick or two, perhaps Godwin's law, insults and all that jazz from somebody that seems to think he's clever and educated. His act is old and tired, and at this point, it personally bores me.

But you should absolutely feel free to engage in mindless conversation if that's your thing.

Here you go dickhead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanocyte

I already know your obtuse prevaricating ass isn't worth a link though from previous arguments. Where I repeatedly pointed out you reinterpreted something I said...which you again did in this argument, and continued arguing as if it didn't happen and you were some sort of challening debator rather than someone who simply refused to admit they were wrong. As if you weren't some saying asshat saying I'm green! as blue paint was thoroughly dumped on your ass.

The one time I was not sure about something we argued on, I never stated as fact, and readily admitted my error. You lack that same capacity as wa obvious in our first argument, and that is why our debates are hostile. And I know the more bellierent I become in manner the more determined you become to not admit error even though you know for a fact you are wrong...and that is a source of enjoyment for some unknown reason.

This however much like the first time we argued happens to fall in an area of very detailed knowlege for myself since it has a great deal to do with the origin of our species....and that would be true even if I hadn't reasearched it before beginning this thread.

ElNono

03-24-2010, 07:54 AM

na, I just want to be clear for future reference.

Wikipedia is a certified medical source? :lol
I still don't see in that link the claim that tanning beds "protects you from UV rays", and that it's a Medical fact.

ElNono

03-24-2010, 07:56 AM

What you're going to get instead is the runaround, trailer park science, strawman, moving of the goalposts, a schtick or two, perhaps Godwin's law, insults and all that jazz from somebody that seems to think he's clever and educated. His act is old and tired, and at this point, it personally bores me.

And so it begins...

whottt

03-24-2010, 08:14 AM

Well I might be boring, but you are the idiot in the thread.

And you aren't worth providing the link, because you are a dishonest person who thinks he's right when he's wrong. Who gets himself in over his head because of a physchological compulsion to change statements. And a stupid one at that.

BTW, nice insight on calling the insults...what uncanny insight.

I want you to go through life thinking tanning doesn't protect you from UV rays. Because you deserve to be stupid :tu

I gave you enough of a link to prove my point. The failure to comprehend that it is so, is all yours.

ElNono

03-24-2010, 08:22 AM

it was sarcasm, i was going to say your cancer can't cet cancer but that would have been too obvious.

My sarcasm meter was off. :lol

And they dont just tax unhealthy things, i think its stupid they tax gym memberships now amd have for the last couple years.

Is that a state tax? Haven't heard about it...

florige

03-24-2010, 08:35 AM

ElNono

03-24-2010, 08:42 AM

Well I might be boring, but you are the idiot in the thread.

schtick, insult

And you aren't worth providing the link, because you are a dishonest person who thinks he's right when he's wrong. Who gets himself in over his head because of a physchological compulsion to change statements. And a stupid one at that.

runaround, strawman, insults

BTW, nice insight on calling the insults...what uncanny insight.

strawman, think he's clever

I want you to go through life thinking tanning doesn't protect you from UV rays. Because you deserve to be stupid :tu

trailer park science, insult, think he's clever and educated.

I gave you enough of a link to prove my point. The failure to comprehend that it is so, is all yours.

runaround, moving of the goalposts

http://www.2secondsfaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/seal-of-approval-thumb3180870.jpg

I certify this is an authentic whottt post :tu

whottt

03-24-2010, 08:47 AM

And I certify you a dumbass who gets into a quote dialogue with someone who bores you.

whottt

03-24-2010, 08:48 AM

Not this black guy.

I had no clue you were black and alway thought you were Mexican.

Maybe you don't like him, but do you understand why everyone else does?

Bill Cosby, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Redd Foxx, Jaime Foxx(sometimes), those guys I get...I do not get this dude.

florige

03-24-2010, 08:55 AM

I had no clue you were black and alway thought you were Mexican.

Maybe you don't like him, but do you understand why everyone else does?

Bill Cosby, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Redd Foxx, Jaime Foxx(sometimes), those guys I get...I do not get this dude.

:lol Nah been black since birth. I have tried to get with his comedies. But don't get it either. From what I gather, most of my black male friends have the same feeling I do on him and his shows. Its the black females that love this asshole for some reason. His one film with Janet Jackson was okay I guess, but I wouldn't go as far as buying it.

ElNono

03-24-2010, 08:55 AM

And I certify you a dumbass who gets into a quote dialogue with someone who bores you.

schtick, insult

whottt

03-24-2010, 09:06 AM

:lol Nah been black since birth. I have tried to get with his comedies. But don't get it either. From what I gather, most of my black male friends have the same feeling I do on him and his shows. Its the black females that love this asshole for some reason. His one film with Janet Jackson was okay I guess, but I wouldn't go as far as buying it.

So all those black guys I see at the Tyler Perry concert have been drug there by their women and don't really want to be there. That explains it...he'll be on lifetime network eventually :tu

Blake

03-24-2010, 09:47 AM

And blake, well blake reinterprets "some health beneifts" to "totally and wholly good for you with absolutely no negative effects of any kind whatsoover".

No I don't.

I am not saying it is totally and wholly good for you with absolutely no negative effects whatsoever, blake.

I now know you think I deal in nothing but absolutes.

You are either a liar or a moron. Since I don't really deal in absolutes to the extreme, I have no problem with the notion that you are a bit of both.

LnGrrrR

03-24-2010, 10:36 AM

Sunscreen has been shown to cause cancer.

In a statistically relevant number of the population? Proof?

That wasn't my statement. My statement was tanning protects you from UV radiation. Simple as that. It does. It protects you from UV radiation.

Are you denying that tanning is CAUSED by UV radiation? Of course not. So, in essence, that is EXACTLY what you're saying, even if you hadn't put those words together in that exact structure.

As far as being dark-complected, uh, no. I'm Irish-German, actually.

Blake

03-24-2010, 10:42 AM

Yes because the tanning is a result of the body protecting itself from UV radiaton. And it's possible to expose yourself to it at low levels and be better protected from it at higher levels because of doing so. That's why the body does it. It is an adaptation to this planet. The ability to go from having very light skin to darker skin is also an adapation. It is skin that is adapatable to hot brighter climates where the ability to block or convert UV ray to heat is needed for survival, and also adaptable to colder lighter environments where the ability to absorb UV is needed for survival.

So if Huge Chavez were truly smart he would shut the fuck up about global warming and start sending us all the free oil he can pump.

Really?

That's not my question. And I'd say well enough to serve us as the primary means of protection for 99.99 % of our existence.

Sunscreen has been shown to cause cancer. It is not natural, it is not a result of adaptation to this planet...it is the result of some idiots saying, here, buy this shit, it'll protect you from skin cancer, and then it turns around and actually causes skin cancer. That is how smart we are. This is also incidentally, why I don't particularly like Doctors sticking fucking pills in my face saying here, this is good for you, better than than plant we used for 200,000 years, even though it's made from that plant. And that in turn is why I am kinda of pissed off about the government telling me, hey, you have to go to these guys giving the shit out.

I have zero intention of covering my body from head to toe in clothing so thefore melanin will be a requirement. And I never said anything about relying soley on melanin.

However since I' don't like pills, I will choose the good old sun or low level UV rays as provided by tanning beds to produce melanin.

No, the Sun produces just about every type of UV ray there is, some more harmful than others and including any kind you can get in a tanning bed, Tanning beds can actually control of the UV rays you get the most of, so that the least damaging ones and ones with other helpful side effects beyond producing melanin are the primary ones you receive, and any of them will cause your body to produce melanin to provide a lasting(but not permanent) ability to convert UV rays to heat.

That wasn't my statement. My statement was tanning protects you from UV radiation. Simple as that. It does. It protects you from UV radiation.

I can say it 1 million times and it will be true every time I say it.

Medical.
Fact.

Ok fine but at no point did I say it prevents sunburn. Although...I actually do think it does protect from sunburn. damn sure it does now that I think about it. And the fact that is even considered debatable, blog link or not, pretty much leads me to the conclusion that you and El Nono are dark complected. And have pretty much had the same threshold for burning your entire lives.

:lol

It's hilarious that you won't take any pills or sunblock from the 'man' but you're ok with getting baked by laying on a tanning bed that produces artificial man made light.

LnGrrrR

03-24-2010, 10:45 AM

Also, that wikipedia link you provided didn't have any proof that tanning protects someone from harmful UV radiation.

Here's some links that back me up though:

http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/news/20090728/who-tanning-beds-cause-cancer

http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/tip-sheet-tanning-booths

http://www.tanninginfocenter.com/tanning-beds-and-skin-cancer.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-07-28-tanning-cancer_N.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32187497/

Some choice quotes from these articles:

In addition, exposure to tanning salon rays increases damage caused by sunlight because ultraviolet light actually thins the skin, making it less able to heal.

Then, the number of people with skin cancer that had used some type of tanning equipment prior to being diagnosed was compared with the number of non-cancerous individuals who had also used some type of tanning equipment. The result of this study showed that the people who had used a tanning bed, tanning booth, or sun lamp were 2.5 times more likely to develop the squamous type of cancer while the increase of basal cancer was 1.5 times greater when compared to those without cancer.

Additionally, just because tanning equipment emits mostly UVA rays included of UVB rays that too should not fool you. Sure, UVA rays do not cause sunburn as often but studies actually show UVA rays can cause melanoma, the deadliest of all cancers. Then, UVA rays also increase the risk of the other two types of cancers.

A new analysis of about 20 studies concludes the risk of skin cancer jumps by 75% when people start using tanning beds before age 30. Experts also found that all types of ultraviolet radiation caused worrying mutations in mice, proof the radiation is carcinogenic. Previously, only one type of ultraviolet radiation was thought to be lethal.

Cogliano cautioned that ultraviolet radiation is not healthy, whether it comes from a tanning bed or from the sun.

Rebuttal?

TeyshaBlue

03-24-2010, 10:48 AM

Honestly, I've argued some retarded points before. But this is something pretty special.:lobt:

rjv

03-24-2010, 10:52 AM

florige

03-24-2010, 11:18 AM

So all those black guys I see at the Tyler Perry concert have been drug there by their women and don't really want to be there. That explains it...he'll be on lifetime network eventually :tu

So you are saying you have gone under your own free will? :lol

Blake

03-24-2010, 11:22 AM

nothing like a nice bet over a squamous cell carcinoma.

Na, he's pretty sure he won't get cancer before I drown.

If I recall, smoking isn't 100% bad for you. It CAN have some health benefits.

Meanwhile, water isn't 100% good for you. Believe it or not, according to whottt, it actually CAN kill you.

It's just an urban legend that if you fall into a swimming pool and you can't swim that you can save yourself by just drinking all the water up.

Blake

03-24-2010, 11:24 AM

So you are saying you have gone under your own free will? :lol

if I recall, he does some kind of security at concerts.

ElNono

03-24-2010, 11:42 AM

As far as being dark-complected, uh, no. I'm Irish-German, actually.

I'm as white as you can get also. Northern Italian descent...

florige

03-24-2010, 12:26 PM

if I recall, he does some kind of security at concerts.

Oh, I guess he gets a pass then. lol

So all those black guys I see at the Tyler Perry concert have been drug there by their women and don't really want to be there. That explains it...he'll be on lifetime network eventually :tu

I also never got the whole Madea thing where he throws on a wig and dresses up in drag?

Winehole23

03-24-2010, 12:58 PM

I also never got the whole Madea thing where he throws on a wig and dresses up in drag?It was funny when Flip Wilson did it.

NO3G_mlBxJg

whottt

03-24-2010, 03:50 PM

In a statistically relevant number of the population? Proof?

I don't know, I know that the one time I used it it fucked my skin up.

Are you denying that tanning is CAUSED by UV radiation?

No, I'm stating that tanning proctects you from UV radiation.

Of course not. So, in essence, that is EXACTLY what you're saying, even if you hadn't put those words together in that exact structure.

Why it necessary to change my quote to make your points? Why can none of you rebut the point without changing my statement?

As far as being dark-complected, uh, no. I'm Irish-German, actually.

Then I guess you guys have never had a suntan.

whottt

03-24-2010, 03:54 PM

whottt

03-24-2010, 03:57 PM

I now know you think I deal in nothing but absolutes.

You are either a liar or a moron. .

Way to prove your point Einstein :tu

whottt

03-24-2010, 04:00 PM

Na, he's pretty sure he won't get cancer before I drown.

Link to me mentioning drowning?

If I recall, smoking isn't 100% bad for you. It CAN have some health benefits.

Exactly. Among them are the prevention of Parkinsons, Alzheimers, certain forms of breast cancer. It can speed up your reactions...

So yes, it can have some health benefits. It fact it's not even a matter of can...it does have certain health benefits.

This does not mean it's automatically good for you.

Meanwhile, water isn't 100% good for you. Believe it or not, according to whottt, it actually CAN kill you.

Synaptic growth is a painful experience, I understand your anger, but gratutity would be much more appropriate.

It's just an urban legend that if you fall into a swimming pool and you can't swim that you can save yourself by just drinking all the water up.

Who in the fuck said about drowing...

This is exactly what I mean when I said sense is never common in a discussion with you. You actually think being obtuse is some kind of cleverness.

Blake

03-24-2010, 04:02 PM

Way to prove your point Einstein :tu

I proved that you are a liar :tu

whottt

03-24-2010, 04:04 PM

I'm not the guy that changes peoples quotes, or back pedals from arguing position. That is you.

You know in that smoking argument you completely contradicted yourself in the span of two posts, in fact you made a direct statement that I quoted, and then you turned right around and reversed.

It was at that point I stopped arguing with you about it.

You don't even realize you did it do you?

whottt

03-24-2010, 04:08 PM

Blake

03-24-2010, 04:17 PM

Link to me mentioning drowning?

you didn't. I did.

Drinking too much water too fast can result in water intoxication, which in effect produces the same effect as drowning in fresh water.

Exactly. Among them are the prevention of Parkinsons, Alzheimers, certain forms of breast cancer. It can speed up your reactions...

So yes, it can have some health benefits. It fact it's not even a matter of can...it does have certain health benefits.

This does not mean it's automatically good for you.

Your line of reasoning has been made crystal clear.

Synaptic growth is a painful experience, I understand your anger, but gratutity would be much more appropriate.

:lol I don't do anger on a silly messageboard.

You however have already been known to put others on ignore. If there is any sign of anger, that would be it.

Who in the fuck said about drowing...

This is exactly what I mean when I said sense is never common in a discussion with you. You actually think being obtuse is some kind of cleverness.

I did. Water intoxication would happen faster than any kind of synaptic growth you think might happen.

You actually think starting a thread on how the tanning tax is racist and lauding the supposed health benefits of artificial tanning is some kind of cleverness.

rjv

03-24-2010, 04:19 PM

No, I'm stating that tanning proctects you from UV radiation.

of course, in order to get a tan, and maintain a tan you have to expose yourself to that very UV radiation to begin with.

Blake

03-24-2010, 04:21 PM

I'm not the guy that changes peoples quotes, or back pedals from arguing position. That is you.

What position have I taken that I have backpedaled on?

Please provide.

You know in that smoking argument you completely contradicted yourself in the span of two posts, in fact you made a direct statement that I quoted, and then you turned right around and reversed.

It was at that point I stopped arguing with you about it.

You don't even realize you did it do you?

Please explain clearly how you feel I contradicted myself.

Blake

03-24-2010, 04:28 PM

So blake, when I say to you, smoking does have some health benefits...

How do you respond to that statement?

Go ahead...respond. I want to see if your response changed from the first time I said it. Since I am such a liar.

You lie about me believing in absolutes. I can repost that lie for you if you would like to read that lie again.

I get the way you do business now.

If I ask you if smoking is good for you, you get really hung up on the word "is" because "is" makes you scared and is too big of an absolute word for you to handle.

Yes, smoking tobacco does have some health benefits.

Do those benefits outweight the possible dangers of smoking? In my opinion, which coincides with the Surgeon General's, my answer is no.

Do you feel that the health benefits of smoking tobacco outweigh the possible dangers of smoking that tobacco?

whottt

03-24-2010, 04:43 PM

You lie about me believing in absolutes. I can repost that lie for you if you would like to read that lie again.

By all means...

All I have to do is post the true false question you asked me...and I didn't automatically claim you believed in absolutes so much as I considered it a condition of retarded cognition.

I get the way you do business now.

After multiple arguments that began with you reinterpreting a statement of mine into something...we'll just call it a lie for now...I don't really give a shit what you think.

If I ask you if smoking is good for you, you get really hung up on the word "is" because "is" makes you scared and is too big of an absolute word for you to handle.

But I am not saying smoking is ngood for you. I am saying it has health benefits. Why is it necessary for you to change the statement?

Yes, smoking tobacco does have some health benefits.

I'm glad you say that now because previously I was posting them and you were flatly denying htem as I posted htem.

Do those benefits outweight the possible dangers of smoking? In my opinion, which coincides with the Surgeon General's, my answer is no.

And you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Do you feel that the health benefits of smoking tobacco outweigh the possible dangers of smoking that tobacco?

Yes, for some people in fact I do think the health benefits outweigh the dangers. And it's also has to do with what you consider a worse fate...

I myself consider Parksinsons and Alzheimers a much worse fate than any kind of cancer you can get. You feel otherwise...your perogative.

I've seen enough people with both to know which one I prefer.

Cancer can be death.

Alzherimers and Parkinson are imprisonment and slow torturous death.

In my personal case, I've seen multiple family members get Parkinsons...aint no fucking way I am spending the last 10 years of my life with that shit.

Sign me up for cancer :tu

Blake

03-25-2010, 12:38 AM

By all means...

All I have to do is post the true false question you asked me...and I didn't automatically claim you believed in absolutes so much as I considered it a condition of retarded cognition.

And blake, well blake reinterprets "some health beneifts" to "totally and wholly good for you with absolutely no negative effects of any kind whatsoover".

I have never used the words "totally and wholly good for you with absolutely no negative effects of any kind whatsoever."

You are a liar.

After multiple arguments that began with you reinterpreting a statement of mine into something...we'll just call it a lie for now...I don't really give a shit what you think.

I didn't reinterpret anything.

I said you have stated that "smoking is good for you".

You went all hell bent saying I am talking in absolutes.

Does smoking have health benefits? You say yes. Therefore you think "smoking is good for you" on that level........whatever that level may be.

For you to assume I meant you stated "smoking is good for you with no negative side effects" is a case of retarded assuming.

I'm glad you say that now because previously I was posting them and you were flatly denying htem as I posted htem.

I was flatly denying some of your claims and how you were alluding to how the Japanese seemed to healthy regardless of how much they smoked.

I said "smoking has no health benefits". I never stated that "smoking tobacco" has no health benefits. I clearly stated in that thread that tobacco in and of itself has some benefits.

Smoke, i.e. burning combustible matter, in and of itself has no health benefits. The dangers of using smoke to ingest the tobacco outweighs any positives one might get out of it, imo.

And you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

which is the same as the S.G. :tu

Yes, for some people in fact I do think the health benefits outweigh the dangers. And it's also has to do with what you consider a worse fate...

I myself consider Parksinsons and Alzheimers a much worse fate than any kind of cancer you can get. You feel otherwise...your perogative.

I've seen enough people with both to know which one I prefer.

Cancer can be death.

Alzherimers and Parkinson are imprisonment and slow torturous death.

In my personal case, I've seen multiple family members get Parkinsons...aint no fucking way I am spending the last 10 years of my life with that shit.

Sign me up for cancer :tu

"April 16, 2008 --...In what is being lauded as a significant finding, research presented at the American Academy of Neurology's 60th Anniversary Annual Meeting this week in Chicago shows that smoking and drinking are among the most important preventable risk factors for Alzheimer's disease.....

http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news...rly-alzheimers

I'll sign you up for Alzheimer's as well. :tu

whottt

03-25-2010, 12:47 AM

I have never used the words "totally and wholly good for you with absolutely no negative effects of any kind whatsoever."

You are a liar.

Who is lying? I didn't say that was a direct quote, it was a paraphrasse signified by quotes. I am not going to look back in the thread where you made the statement.

I didn't reinterpret anything.

I said you have stated that "smoking is good for you".

You went all hell bent saying I am talking in absolutes.

Does smoking have health benefits? You say yes. Therefore you think "smoking is good for you" on that level........whatever that level may be.

For you to assume I meant you stated "smoking is good for you with no negative side effects" is a case of retarded assuming.

whatever.

I was flatly denying some of your claims and how you were alluding to how the Japanese seemed to healthy regardless of how much they smoked.

I said "smoking has no health benefits". I never stated that "smoking tobacco" has no health benefits. I clearly stated in that thread that tobacco in and of itself has some benefits.

Smoke, i.e. burning combustible matter, in and of itself has no health benefits. The dangers of using smoke to ingest the tobacco outweighs any positives one might get out of it, imo.

Whatever. I know what you did in that thrread and it's not important enough to go back and prove.

which is the same as the S.G. :tu

Don't care. I don't have any doubt you do as you're told in many aspects of life.

"April 16, 2008 --...In what is being lauded as a significant finding, research presented at the American Academy of Neurology's 60th Anniversary Annual Meeting this week in Chicago shows that smoking and drinking are among the most important preventable risk factors for Alzheimer's disease.....

http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news...rly-alzheimers

I'll sign you up for Alzheimer's as well. :tu

Well I know for a fact there is conflicting data and I posted it in that thread, and that thread was more recent than 2008.

Blake

03-25-2010, 02:04 AM

Who is lying? I didn't say that was a direct quote, it was a paraphrasse signified by quotes. I am not going to look back in the thread where you made the statement.

Quotes generally signify direct quotes, not paraphrasing.

You getting shown up as a liar is on you.

What's hilarious is how you blast other posters for paraphrasing you, and here you try to do it yourself and fail.

whatever.

translation: I failed at trying to play a semantics game.

Don't care. I don't have any doubt you do as you're told in many aspects of life.

I don't have any reason to doubt the surgeon general's claims. I have plenty of reasons to doubt your claims.

Well I know for a fact there is conflicting data and I posted it in that thread, and that thread was more recent than 2008.

It was slightly important enough for me to look up in that thread but I failed to find your conflicting data.

That thread's last post was 12/7/09.

I'm just posting this 3/5/10 article as an fyi. You can take it for what it's worth, which I will guess won't be much:

Smoking prevents Alzheimer's? It depends who you ask

Papers by people with links to the tobacco industry play down the risks of Alzheimer's associated with smoking

Ben Goldacre guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 March 2010 21.00 GMT

If the media were actuarial about drawing our attention to the causes of avoidable death, newspapers would be filled with diarrhoea, Aids and cigarettes every day. In reality we know this is an absurd idea. For those interested in the scale of our fascination with rarity, one piece of research looked at a period in 2002 and found that 8,571 people had to die from smoking to generate one story on the subject from the BBC, while there were three stories for every death from vCJD.

So you've probably heard that smoking may prevent Alzheimer's. It comes up in the papers, sometimes to say it is true, sometimes to say it has been refuted. Maybe you think it's a mixed bag, that "experts are divided". Perhaps you smoke, and joke about how it will stop you losing your marbles.

This month, Janine Cataldo and colleagues publish a systematic review on the subject, but with a very interesting twist. First they found all the papers ever published on smoking and Alzheimer's, using an explicit search strategy which they describe properly in the paper – because they are scientists, not homeopaths – to make sure that they found all of the evidence, rather than just the studies they already knew about, or the ones which flattered their preconceptions.

They found 43 in total, and overall, smoking significantly increases your risk of Alzheimer's. But they went further. Eleven of the studies were written by people with affiliations to the tobacco industry. This wasn't always declared, so to double check, the researchers searched on the University of California's Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, a vast collection of scanned material which has been gathered over decades of legal action.

If you ever want to spend a chilling afternoon in the head of an industry whose product has been proven to kill a third of its customers, this is the place for you. "The importance of younger adults" uses financial modelling to explain the importance of recruiting teenage smokers to replace the dying older ones before it's too late, and explains that "repeated government studies have shown less than one third of smokers start after age 18 [and] only 5% of smokers start after age 24." "Youth cigarette – new concepts" from Marketing Innovations Inc takes these ideas further, into cola and apple flavour cigarettes, because "apples connote goodness and freshness".

How much did it matter if the researchers worked for the tobacco companies? A lot: the risks of Alzheimer's associated with smoking reported by these papers were on average about a third lower than those conducted by others, and they produced many papers showing cigarettes were protective. If you exclude these 11 papers, and look only at the remainder, your chances of getting Alzheimer's are vastly higher: comparing a smoker against a non-smoker, the odds are higher by 1.72 to 1.

So does that mean we can ignore all research that comes from people who disgust us? In Nazi Germany two researchers, Schairer and Schöniger, worked on biological theories of degenerate behaviour under Professor Karl Astel, who helped organise the operation that murdered 200,000 mentally and physically disabled people.

In 1943 the researchers published a well-conducted study demonstrating a relationship between smoking and lung cancer. Their paper wasn't mentioned in the classic Doll and Bradford Hill paper of 1950, it was referred to only four times in the 60s, once in the 70s, and then not again until 1988, despite providing a valuable early warning on a killer that would cause 100 million early deaths in the 20th century. It's not obvious what you do with evidence from untrustworthy sources, but it's always worth appraising its untrustworthiness with the best tools available.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/05/smoking-alzheimers-goldacre-bad-science

whottt

03-25-2010, 02:15 AM

Quotes generally signify direct quotes, not paraphrasing.

But I am not attempting to claim they are direct quotes and admit I am paraphrasing a 4 month old argument because I don't give a shit enough to actually look up thread. I don't really care if you consider that lying, because I already thought you were and are deceptive first. And a an obtuse dickhead.

You getting shown up as a liar is on you.

What am I lying about?

What's hilarious is how you blast other posters for paraphrasing you, and here you try to do it yourself and fail.

Because their parpahrasing is leading to the argument. For instance one idiot claimed I said tanning beds don't admit UV radiation. And you did something similar that argument....I don't give a shit if you agree with me or not, obviously you are either deliberately self deceived or else you aren't aware you did it. And I know did it then just like I know Duncansownkobe and El Nono did here. There is a certain type of dickhead that does it...and that is you.

It's a 3-4 month old argument that I came away from having no respect for you with.

translation: I failed at trying to play a semantics game.

Translation: I am not going to look up that thread to get the details. And I do not care what you think.

I don't have any reason to doubt the surgeon general's claims. I have plenty of reasons to doubt your claims.

And I do not give a shit.

It was slightly important enough for me to look up in that thread but I failed to find your conflicting data.

I don't doubt that you couldn't find it. You couldn't find it when I posted it originally either. That's one of the mean reason you rate as nothing more than an obtuse dickhead IMHO :tu

That thread's last post was 12/7/09.

I'm just posting this 3/5/10 article as an fyi. You can take it for what it's worth, which I will guess won't be much:

You guessed right on that. As I said already there are conflicting data....and I could post that something contradcicts it and you will still be an obtuse dickhead in the discussion.

Fact.

Blake

03-25-2010, 02:43 AM

But I am not attempting to claim they are direct quotes and admit I am paraphrasing a 4 month old argument because I don't give a shit enough to actually look up thread. I don't really care if you consider that lying, because I already thought you were and are deceptive first. And a an obtuse dickhead.

you obviously don't understand how quotes work or how the question "is water good for you" in practical terms can be answered with a simple "yes" because the dangers of water are well known.

You have definitively proven to be obtuse.

What am I lying about?

Already clearly posted.

More proof of you being obtuse.

Because their parpahrasing is leading to the argument. For instance one idiot claimed I said tanning beds don't admit UV radiation. And you did something similar that argument....I don't give a shit if you agree with me or not, obviously you are either deliberately self deceived or else you aren't aware you did it. And I know did it then just like I know Duncansownkobe and El Nono did here. There is a certain type of dickhead that does it...and that is you.

It's a 3-4 month old argument that I came away from having no respect for you with.

It's a 3-4 month old argument that I came away from, only to find you using the same ridiculous "but it has some health benefits" logic in this thread.

Luckily for me, I'm not here to get your respect.

Translation: I am not going to look up that thread to get the details. And I do not care what you think.

And I do not give a shit.

Are those absolutes? I don't think so. I think you care and give just enough of a shit to post a response to what I say.

I don't doubt that you couldn't find it. You couldn't find it when I posted it originally either. That's one of the mean reason you rate as nothing more than an obtuse dickhead IMHO :tu

I couldn't find it because it's not there.

This was your direct quote to me regarding the 08 article:

So like I was saying, smoking tobacco prevents Parkinson's disease, thanks for the link, but it really wasn't necessary, I already knew that. In fact I the told you that. And I am betting you were totally unaware of it prior to me doing so...

more proof of you being a liar.....or obtuse.....take your pick :tu

You guessed right on that. As I said already there are conflicting data....and I could post that something contradcicts it and you will still be an obtuse dickhead in the discussion.

Fact.

I don't doubt you will continue to believe the big companies' research and data in regards to smoking and tanning beds.

43 studies done, 11 by ones with affiliations to tobacco companies, show smoking significantly increases your risk of Alzheimers.

You are very clearly the obtuse dickhead in this discussion. That is a fact.

whottt

03-25-2010, 03:06 AM

you obviously don't understand how quotes work or how the question "is water good for you" in practical terms can be answered with a simple "yes" because the dangers of water are well known.

You have definitively proven to be obtuse.

Already clearly posted.

More proof of you being obtuse.

It's a 3-4 month old argument that I came away from, only to find you using the same ridiculous "but it has some health benefits" logic in this thread.

Luckily for me, I'm not here to get your respect.

Are those absolutes? I don't think so. I think you care and give just enough of a shit to post a response to what I say.

I couldn't find it because it's not there.

This was your direct quote to me regarding the 08 article:

more proof of you being a liar.....or obtuse.....take your pick :tu

I don't doubt you will continue to believe the big companies' research and data in regards to smoking and tanning beds.

43 studies done, 11 by ones with affiliations to tobacco companies, show smoking significantly increases your risk of Alzheimers.

You are very clearly the obtuse dickhead in this discussion. That is a fact.

So this means you'll be engaging in future discussions with those on your level? By all means...don't let me stand in your way. Hop to it......

LnGrrrR

03-25-2010, 03:40 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanocyte

Either that article is going over you guys heads or ya'll aren't reading it.

If if is that you just simply don't understand that article let me know I willl be happy to clarify it.

But I already posted the scientific proof, a very detailed description in fact. The most detailed description I could find.

Ok, I'm going to assume you're trolling here. There's nothing in that wikipedia article about melanocyte that references protection.

The fact that you used sunblock once and it "messed up your skin" in no way backs up your claim that it causes cancer.

And you also expect us to believe that the vast majority of professionals are wrong when they state tanning beds can cause cancer.

whottt

03-25-2010, 03:54 AM

Ok, I'm going to assume you're trolling here. There's nothing in that wikipedia article about melanocyte that references protection.

I'm sorry you don't see it. You could always google the info for yourself. I am not some infinite link provider. It's not that hard to google and find out.

The fact that you used sunblock once and it "messed up your skin" in no way backs up your claim that it causes cancer.

Can't find that info either? Ok, we'll just say I totally made it up. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that sunblock causes skin cancer. I pulled it totally out of my ass and you have exposed this.

Much like you have seen through my grand charade that exposure to UV rays helps protect the body from UV rays.

Well done sir :tu

And you also expect us to believe that the vast majority of professionals are wrong when they state tanning beds can cause cancer.

You have also deftly exposed my blatant lie that tanning beds do not cause cancer. Something I admit to claiming at least 50 times in this thread. I should have known better than to match wits with you on that :tu

Never again will I attempt to pull the wool over your perceptive eyes, and now that you have exposed me for the misleading link poster I truly am, I understand why you would not want to engage in further debate with someone you know lies and make false claims of fact. So I blew my chance to be taken seriously as a poster by you and you see me for what I truly am.

Accepted.

And congrats again...I can only tip my hat and say well done :tu

Blake

03-25-2010, 10:48 AM

So this means you'll be engaging in future discussions with those on your level? By all means...don't let me stand in your way. Hop to it......

I probably will. I'll probably engage in future discussions with thos above my level.
Hell, as evidenced by this thread, I don't even mind engaging in discussion with those beneath my level.

Just curious, is the title of the thread an absolute yes or no question? Do you feel that this question is an absolute yes or no question as well?

:lol Fucking hypocrite. Fucking idiot.

Entertaining thread though :tu

Blake

03-25-2010, 10:59 AM

I'm sorry you don't see it. You could always google the info for yourself. I am not some infinite link provider. It's not that hard to google and find out.

And then when someone finds information from a legititmate source, you dismiss it......

which is acceptable for you to do in your own personal life, but to do it during a discussion makes you a douche bag.

Can't find that info either? Ok, we'll just say I totally made it up. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that sunblock causes skin cancer. I pulled it totally out of my ass and you have exposed this.

Much like you have seen through my grand charade that exposure to UV rays helps protect the body from UV rays.

Well done sir :tu

Just curious, if you make claims but put in on the reader to verify your claims, why do you even bother making the claims?

You have also deftly exposed my blatant lie that tanning beds do not cause cancer. Something I admit to claiming at least 50 times in this thread. I should have known better than to match wits with you on that :tu

Never again will I attempt to pull the wool over your perceptive eyes, and now that you have exposed me for the misleading link poster I truly am, I understand why you would not want to engage in further debate with someone you know lies and make false claims of fact. So I blew my chance to be taken seriously as a poster by you and you see me for what I truly am.

Accepted.

And congrats again...I can only tip my hat and say well done :tu

I don't think you convinced anyone in this thread that the health care reform is racist.

I can only tip my hat and say well done, douche bag. :tu

whottt

03-25-2010, 03:23 PM

I probably will. I'll probably engage in future discussions with thos above my level.

Those are going to be very difficult to find...

Hell, as evidenced by this thread, I don't even mind engaging in discussion with those beneath my level.

Too bad....

Just curious, is the title of the thread an absolute yes or no question? Do you feel that this question is an absolute yes or no question as well?

Why bother asking when you already know the answer?

:lol Fucking hypocrite. Fucking idiot.

Entertaining thread though :tu

I didn't find it entertaining at all. I wish I hadn't started it, and doubt I will start one like it again. It's like I started it expecting to shake up the world and instead was overwhelmed with massive intellects :tu

Getting busted on my outlandish and irresponsible claim that tanning beds don't admit UV radiation should have sent signals to me I wasn't dealing with the usual patsies I find in this forum.

whottt

03-25-2010, 03:26 PM

And then when someone finds information from a legititmate source, you dismiss it......

which is acceptable for you to do in your own personal life, but to do it during a discussion makes you a douche bag.

Just curious, if you make claims but put in on the reader to verify your claims, why do you even bother making the claims?

Because if people really want to see know if something is true or not, they'll be willing to look for it themselves and not ask someone to feed it to them. It's not like it's any harder to do than making a post.

I don't think you convinced anyone in this thread that the health care reform is racist.

Shit. And I had such high hopes when I started it...

I can only tip my hat and say well done, douche bag. :tu

And I can only ask if blake wants a cracker :tu

Blake

03-25-2010, 03:45 PM

Getting busted on my outlandish and irresponsible claim that tanning beds don't admit UV radiation should have sent signals to me I wasn't dealing with the usual patsies I find in this forum.

You really overuse the phrase (to paraphrase) "show me where I said that".

You're not really into finding truth. You're more into playing silly games.

Blake

03-25-2010, 03:54 PM

Because if people really want to see know if something is true or not, they'll be willing to look for it themselves and not ask someone to feed it to them. It's not like it's any harder to do than making a post.

This is the way it has gone in general, in my opinion, when I get into it with you:

you make a claim

I say what's your proof

you say find it yourself

I say I found proof that the opposite is true

you say no, there is conflicting data on the subject

I say what is the conflicting data

you again say find it yourself

it's just games.

I'm comfortable with the information I have gathered on subjects, but if someone makes a claim to the contrary, I like to read it to see if my mind gets changed.

You making the claim but then say to find it yourself does me no favors and makes you a huge douche, imo.

If you are posting just to play games, just say so and be done with it. Otherwise back up your shit so that some of us might actually get a little closer to truth in the world.

And I can only ask if blake wants a cracker :tu

you may as well ask me "yes or no, how many stars are in the sky?" :tu

Blake

03-25-2010, 03:56 PM

I didn't find it entertaining at all. I wish I hadn't started it, and doubt I will start one like it again.

It's probably better you don't :tu

whottt

03-25-2010, 05:42 PM

You really overuse the phrase (to paraphrase) "show me where I said that".

Coming from you that means a lot.

You're not really into finding truth. You're more into playing silly games.

I'll try to be a more a skillfull intelligent debator like yourself. Be paitent though, it's not something that's easy to do.

whottt

03-25-2010, 05:43 PM

It's probably better you don't :tu

I'm more worried about what's best for SpursTalk, and SpursReport, than I am what's best for myself.

Blake

03-26-2010, 12:01 PM

I'll try to be a more a skillfull intelligent debator like yourself. Be paitent though, it's not something that's easy to do.

I don't really care what you do. I just want to know if you are posting to be jackass or if you really believe some of the stupid crap you post.

This way I'll know for future reference whether or not to even bother reading failed threads you start or replies you make.

word

03-26-2010, 12:13 PM

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs45/i/2009/122/6/9/tan_stewie_by_gwai1o.jpg

whottt

03-26-2010, 02:41 PM

I don't really care what you do. I just want to know if you are posting to be jackass or if you really believe some of the stupid crap you post.

Depends on who I am arguing with.

This way I'll know for future reference whether or not to even bother reading failed threads you start or replies you make.

You're just gonna have to figure that one out for yourslef Blakey.

Blake

03-26-2010, 04:10 PM

You're just gonna have to figure that one out for yourslef Blakey.

This is a typical phrase from you that keeps you from convincing anyone you are right about anything.

whottt

03-26-2010, 04:15 PM

This is a typical phrase from you that keeps you from convincing anyone you are right about anything.

I don't do convincing blake...I simply state the facts and let others do with them what they will. It's a free country you know.

Blake

03-26-2010, 07:20 PM

I don't do convincing blake...I simply state the facts and let others do with them what they will. It's a free country you know.

no you don't.

"cigarette smoking helps prevent Alzheimer's" is not a fact.

but you can lie about it if you want. It's a free country.

whottt

03-27-2010, 08:20 AM

Blake

03-29-2010, 03:06 PM

:yawn

Since you obviously need it spelled out for you...no you are one of the ones that aren't going to get a serious debate out of me. Because you are a fucking dumbass.

Case in point: You claiming I stated cigarettes on Alzheimers is a fact..when just a few posts go I admitted there was conflicing data. And yet here you are calling me a liar. More to the point...this is more or less the same debate I lost interest in having with you last time, when you denied making a statement, as I was sitting there looking at the direct quote from you.

see what's great about the way you post is that nobody knows when you are spinning something as fact or opinion

Case in point:

Exactly. Among them are the prevention of Parkinsons, Alzheimers, certain forms of breast cancer. It can speed up your reactions...

So yes, it [smoking] can have some health benefits. It fact it's not even a matter of can...it does have certain health benefits.

This does not mean it's automatically good for you.

Wtf is this? Fact or opinion?

Or is this another question that's too much of an absolute for you to answer?

You aren't going to get a serious debate out of me. Because it is stupid and pointless to attempt a serious debate with you.

So far it's been pointless for both of us....

for you because you've lost on every point and for me because I still am confident that health care reform is not racist and that tanning beds and cigarettes do way more harm than good.

My opinion is that you are a jackass.

Edit: because you are a jackass.