Taxes, surcharges and freedom.

[Calax]

Not entirely on topic but I thought this was worth discussing. California has banned the use of tanning beds by people under the age of 18. There are a number of harmful activites that minors are not allowed to do like smoking, drinking, etc because the idea is their judgement is not developed enough to appreciate the risks. I guess this could be considered on par with smoking and drinking because excesses of each is indisputably dangerous.

 

Opinions?

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/09/...E7982DJ20111009

 

I think I'm pretty consistent in arguing that kids don't reason effectively, due to a combination of factors, including susceptibility to peer pressure/advertising as much as raw mental immaturity.

Just wanna point out... that the arbitrary definition of an adult as being 18 is rather rediculous.

Especially if you ask the 17 year olds

 

What would the alternative be though, sitting a written test to pass into adulthood? Measuring hormone levels in the bloodstream? Bring the severed head of a traditional enemy? Going on a pilgrimage? Somewhere, somebody has to make that "arbitrary" line

True, there is that necessity for an arbitrary point, but I'd think that it should be all or nothing... rather than slowly trickling abilities to the youngsters.

[Volourn]

Under 18s can't think for themselevs and making reasonable and rational choices/ L0L That's one of the most hilarious things I ever heard. It cetrainly isn't 17 year olds who started world wars, use religion or race to mass murder.

 

It cetrainly wasn't a 17 year old who murdered their duaghtered when she accidenally unplugged his video game.

 

It cetrainly wasn't a 17 year old got so enraged at being smacktalked in an online game so hunted down the 13 year old perperator and choked him out until his mommy stopped him.

 

It certainly wasn't a 17 year old who murdered their baby BECAUSE GOD TOLD THEM TOO.

 

Need I go on?

 

It's hialrious to me that 'adults' somehow think they're sooo much more mature, intelligent or suited to make certain decisisons because of some imaginary number that is utterly meaningless - espciially when it comes to soemthing as silly as a tanning bed. None of the Jersey Shore freaks are under 18 yet they obviously are abusers of tanning. L0LZ

[Oblarg]

Not entirely on topic but I thought this was worth discussing. California has banned the use of tanning beds by people under the age of 18. There are a number of harmful activites that minors are not allowed to do like smoking, drinking, etc because the idea is their judgement is not developed enough to appreciate the risks. I guess this could be considered on par with smoking and drinking because excesses of each is indisputably dangerous.

 

Opinions?

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/09/...E7982DJ20111009

 

I think I'm pretty consistent in arguing that kids don't reason effectively, due to a combination of factors, including susceptibility to peer pressure/advertising as much as raw mental immaturity.

Just wanna point out... that the arbitrary definition of an adult as being 18 is rather rediculous.

 

Ridiculous, but necessary. Arbitrary cutoffs are an essential, if imperfect, part of legislation.

 

Also, Volourn, are you intentionally being a moron or does it just come naturally?

Edited October 11, 2011 by Oblarg

[Walsingham]

Judging by the consistency I'd have to say that it's either a natural talent or the result of years of painstaking hard training.

[Volourn]

Call me a moron all you want and avoid the fact you can't really argue against my points. Over the eyars,a dults have proven time and time again that they ain't too bright either.

 

HINT: World calamities have NEVER been caused by under 18s. Coincidence? I think not.

[Hurlshort]

What about when Matthew Broderick almost started a nuclear war by hacking into the Department of Defense's supercomputer?

[Volourn]

My bad. The exception that proves the rule.

[Orogun01]

Call me a moron all you want and avoid the fact you can't really argue against my points. Over the eyars,a dults have proven time and time again that they ain't too bright either.

 

HINT: World calamities have NEVER been caused by under 18s. Coincidence? I think not.

Ok I'm game, you're a moron.

 

The only reason that no calamities have been caused by under 18s; which I doubt that in the entire history of the world is true, is because they can barely take care of themselves much less exert their will upon the world.

 

Also; I broke the dam.

[Volourn]

"is because they can barely take care of themselves much less exert their will upon the world."

 

That's hilariously naive!

 

Many under 18s are more mature than many adults. And, you'd ahve to be an absolute moran to think otherwise.

Edited October 12, 2011 by Volourn

[Oblarg]

"is because they can barely take care of themselves much less exert their will upon the world."

 

That's hilariously naive!

 

Many under 18s are more mature than many adults. And, you'd ahve to be an absolute moran to think otherwise.

 

Truly talented troll right here folks. Watch and learn...

[Humodour]

Truly talented troll right here folks. Watch and learn...

 

Indeed.

 

That said, I do think that those younger than 30 seem to have a more coherent and sensible grasp of what the **** is happening in the world right now.

[Asol]

A person from 11-13 should be able to enter any segment of productive society at the least an apprenticeship level. That is without too debilitating an upbringing, the adult being 18 idea is there to protect the work force and wage levels even if no one will admit it, same as the encouragement for people to go to school till 25-30 for a degree in organic blubberdashery and so on...

 

Also with the diet information please read and consider Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. Very rigorous researcher and great book.

[Walsingham]

And, you'd ahve to be an absolute moran to think otherwise.

 

To be precise, you'd have to be Colonel Sebastian Moran!

 

[Oblarg]

Also with the diet information please read and consider Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. Very rigorous researcher and great book.

 

Protip: There's no such thing as a "good calorie" and a "bad calorie." Energy is energy.

[Orogun01]

Protip: There's no such thing as a "good calorie" and a "bad calorie." Energy is energy.

Sigh; he is talking about effectiveness, how much gets absorbed by the body and how much it burns.

[Walsingham]

The notion that measuring a foodstuff's impact on the human body by how much water it boils <sic> has always struck me as borderline insane.

[Hurlshort]

Also with the diet information please read and consider Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. Very rigorous researcher and great book.

 

Protip: There's no such thing as a "good calorie" and a "bad calorie." Energy is energy.

 

Have you read the book? Or at least looked at a summary of it?

 

Because otherwise your response comes across as uninformed and presumptive.

[Rosbjerg]

Because otherwise your response comes across as uninformed and presumptive.

 

Well he's right.. it's all just energy, the only real problem arises from getting more than you use.

[Hurlshort]

Because otherwise your response comes across as uninformed and presumptive.

 

Well he's right.. it's all just energy, the only real problem arises from getting more than you use.

 

His post was a fact, but Asol was simply sharing the title of a book.

[Malcador]

I'm failing to see the issue here, heh.

[Asol]

Also with the diet information please read and consider Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. Very rigorous researcher and great book.

 

Protip: There's no such thing as a "good calorie" and a "bad calorie." Energy is energy.

 

 

Well the title is for the market and the UK edition is called the Diet Delusion if that helps, also I wouldn't lightly call someone rigorous. A lot of material is references such as weights of various agricultural societies and historic changes in general diet which provides information regarding fats from various sources as well as simple and complex sugars... It does spend significant time however under-minding the calorie as a relevant metric over all.

For an analogy there is also no such thing as 'good cellulose" and "bad cellulose" however when we go to make a campfire we select pieces that are dry, easily stacked, broken, or chopped as well as not having fungus or a swarm of insects about it. The cellulose itself is the same from instance to instance however we can easily select pieces that are far more susceptible to the chemical reaction of fire than others. Having a goal of a healthy campfire gives you good and bad cellulose to pick from, having a goal of good health and a strong metabolism gives you good and bad calories to pick from.

[Oblarg]

Having a goal of a healthy campfire gives you good and bad cellulose to pick from, having a goal of good health and a strong metabolism gives you good and bad calories to pick from.

 

This argument would be a lot more convincing if nutritionists actually understood the biochemistry of metabolism that causes the supposed health effects of various foods rather than simply presenting a rapidly shifting array of things which are "good" and "bad" based on the most recent poorly-controlled correlative studies.

 

I don't put much store in modern nutrition, and for good reasons.

[Asol]

Having a goal of a healthy campfire gives you good and bad cellulose to pick from, having a goal of good health and a strong metabolism gives you good and bad calories to pick from.

 

This argument would be a lot more convincing if nutritionists actually understood the biochemistry of metabolism that causes the supposed health effects of various foods rather than simply presenting a rapidly shifting array of things which are "good" and "bad" based on the most recent poorly-controlled correlative studies.

 

I don't put much store in modern nutrition, and for good reasons.

 

Well when I am talking about the cellulose about it is actually a specific substance, with a specific chemical composition and i can measure it in grams, i can send it to someone and they can confirm it is cellulose. Fire is probably a simple and less particular process than the host of interwoven processes of the body related to extracting energy from foods, yet i can select specifically to facilitate the fire. Calories on the other hand is an abstract metric applied to a host of substances based on how they react to a process that is loosely supposedly analogous to the end result of metabolism, which is a process aggregate of other processes.

 

As a consumer with a supposed scientific attitude it is ones own job to sift the sugar from the sand. A person should evaluate and contrast various arguements and perhaps experiment with the principles to see if they work and to what extent and in what circumstances rather than claim its 'not understood', that claim can always be cast out there depending on what kind of specifics you are looking for...

Edited October 12, 2011 by Asol

[Oblarg]

We know fairly well the caloric value our body can extract from various foods. We know fairly well how many calories our body burns per day. We know fairly well how much our body needs of protein. Those are the two major things that you have to worry about - largely, if you don't eat too much, you'll be fine. We also know of a few trace substances we need to avoid getting well-known dietary illnesses, and of a very few things which are demonstrably bad due to chemical interactions which we understand.

 

Past that, modern nutrition is largely bull****.

[Humodour]

Also with the diet information please read and consider Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. Very rigorous researcher and great book.

 

Protip: There's no such thing as a "good calorie" and a "bad calorie." Energy is energy.

 

Protip: You're wrong.

 

Some molecules produces more calories than others (and in this sense can all be thought of as 'calories' themselves), and further the different molecules have different levels of benefit (or hindrance) in the body.

 

For example, one of the types of calories, cholesterol, pretty obviously has good and bad forms (broadly speaking, HDL vs LDL). While simple carbohydrates (sugars) are (in equivalent, i.e. large, amounts) worse for you then complex carbohydrates. Moreover one type of carbohydrate, fibre, is pretty much completely indigestible. On to fats, trans fats are absolutely horrible for the body relative to natural fats. And of the (non-cholesterol) natural unsaturated fats, poly- produce more health benefits than mono-, which are bother better for you than saturated fats (which lack any reactive pi bonding).

 

Even this summary is incomplete, as within each category there are hundreds of different types of each molecule which can often be ranked along a scale of 'goodness' in the body - some of these molecules with the right geometries or bonds to entirely violate the general properties of their category (e.g. vaccenic acid [which is able to be converted from a trans to a cis isomer in the body, and then metabolised], as Zoraptor ignorantly pointed out thinking it meant that all trans fats must be OK for you).

 

So, uh, there are pretty clearly 'good calories' and 'bad calories'.

 

Now, here is a list of how much caloric energy the mains types of hydrocarbons generally produce in the body (and note the quote from Wikipedia below about burning these things to produce the measure - it's a bit more nuanced than that, and while still not really getting into the nitty gritty of the citric acid cycle or anything, does give a decent broad representation of what foods are going to give you more/less energy.

 

Calories for various hydrocarbons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_energy#Nutrition_labels

 

The amount of food energy associated with a particular food could be measured by completely burning the dried food in a bomb calorimeter, a method known as direct calorimetry.[5] However, the values given on food labels are not determined in this way. The reason for this is that direct calorimetry also burns the indigestible dietary fiber, and so does not allow for fecal losses (i.e. the fact that not all food eaten is actually absorbed by the body); thus direct calorimetry would give systematic overestimates of the amount of fuel that actually enters the blood through digestion. What are used instead are standardized chemical tests or an analysis of the recipe using reference tables for common ingredients[6] are used to estimate the product's digestible constituents (protein, carbohydrate, fat, etc.). These results are then converted into an equivalent energy value based on the following standardized table of energy densities.