Posts by phimegaphi

Good job, guys! Any other takers today?

In my super optimistic moments, I imagine a uniting of CCers, all of us getting up from our office chairs all at once, heading to the water cooler, up a flight of stairs, around the building, out to the gym, out for a walk, volunteering to go run the mail up to someone's office, or to bring a package to the department over--all of us everywhere, getting up off our duffs and moving, in a grand synchronized moment of motivation.

*sigh*

A girl can dream...

My knee hurts, I got very little sleep last night, it's cold out, and spitting rain. But I got dressed and went out anyway and jogged for a half hour. And you know what? My knee still hurts, I'm still lacking sleep, it's still cold out and spitting rain. The difference is that NOW I feel like a total bad ass. Go me.

What a little moving around can do! Sloth to bad-ass in a little under 30 minutes. Woot!

Original Post by vejitarian:

I don't think anyone is advocating 'banning' the billboard. It is controversial and has gotten people talking, which is good, but I don't think PETA anticipated that what everyone is talking about is PETA's radical idiocy which completely detracts from the message they are supposedly trying to convey (um, anti-whaling was it?)

I didn't say people were asking to ban the billboard. I said that like banned books, controversial billboards are the mark of success. Banned books gets loads more publicity when they're banned than they did prior to the banning. Similarly, when people get all up in arms about a billboard, it's publicity (exponentionaly) multiplies--making it much more successful as an advertisement than it was prior to all the fuss. Before, this stupid ad was only reaching a few Floridians driving along a highway. Now, because so many people have blogged and bitched about it, going bananas over its offense, millions of people have seen it. That's called advertising success. 

And I wouldn't put it past PETA to have anticipated and hoped that this billboard would get all of the attention it is getting. Even if it is negative attention, it gets PETA's name out there. And it's not like they've minded negative publicity before--on the contrary, they seem to relish in it. In the ad world, no publicity is bad publicity, whereas negative publicity is success.

I mean, neither of us can be sure, put I wouldn't be surprised if some ad 'genius' working for PETA is now smiling ear to ear, getting champaign-toasts from his co-workers, and sleeping like a rock, stoked that his little 'baby' is getting so much attention.

Running. Reading. Affording myself guaranteed pleasures--like running, reading, thinking, sleeping, petting my cat, drawing, etc.--things where I hardly depend on anything else but myself to reap a positive emotional reward.

Actually, just taking my mind off of myself, in any capacity, seems to always lift my spirits. That's why reading is so freaking awesome .You get to concentrate on someone else's ideas, someone else's stories, you get to be empathetic rather than selfishly pathetic.

In other words, I find that I really have to get my head out of my own ass before I can be really happy. But that's just me.

p.s. I don't mean this at all to imply that thinking about yourself is your problem; this is just my own neuroses--I'm ridiculously vain and selfish. You just asked what makes us happy and I responded--typically self-centeredly--about what makes me happy. Sorry.

I don't see how 'particles per square inch' could possibly yield a fair measure of accountability. Your mention of thrown wind is just one concern. Forced posterior rips are another. I recall--living in a house of adolescent brothers--having been made to eat beans. Yes, beans! Beans! The musical fruit. I was made to eat them to ensure that I'd toot. How embarrassing! How unjust! I did not want the beans in the first place. And even if I did, I certainly did not want the accommodating cheese-cuttings.

So I move for a more just standard: hedons.

Hedons are the happy-points that many utilitarians think an individual's happiness level can be measured by. My guess is that the excreter of wind on any given occasion will have a noticeable bump in hedons, since the release of passed gas is (rumored to be) oh-so-pleasant to the breaker. Whilst the surrounding, olfactory sensitive population will have a significant decrease in hedons, since sudden, unpredicted foul stenches, not of their own making, seemingly causes everyone to (understandably) yak. 

This has the advantage of measuring intent, since someone who is (for example) forced to eat beans and then inadvertently breaks wind as a result will enjoy the passing of gas so much less than one who is maliciously inclined to make others suffer due to his back end emissions.

So, hedons? The ratio of breaker to non-breaker hedons? Discuss.

Original Post by smwhipple:

BMI is frequently incorrect, particularly at the higher end of the scale.  My doctor tells me that I'm healthy, my BMI says that I'm slightly overweight.

My guess--and this is just a guess, since the doctor doesn't address the practicle difficulties of implementing his program on hiring bans--is that it is not the borderline cases he is worried about. It is the clearly obese, and not some vague middling ground, or even being just slightly overweight, but clear obesity.

And this is as clear as the difference bewteen being a smoker and non-smkoker, right? I mean, if I smoke one cigarette a week am I a smoker? I don't know. Probably not. What about two cigarettes a week? Again, I don't know. There are certainly borderline cases, and it may not even be clear when the borderline cases end and the non-borderline cases begin. But when you get to like a pack or two a day, now you're a clear case of being a smoker. I think the surgeon might say (agains, speculating) that having a certain BMI is like that--there are clear cases when it matters to your health--over 35, for example.

Original Post by jackattack07:

"And so it isn't discrimination based on looks or aesthetics."

Yes, it is. How can you tell when someone is fat?

You look at them. Is he really going to put every employee or interviewee on a scale regularly? Doubt it.

Oh, sorry. I thought I included it in the description. He wants to do it based on BMI, which is something he thinks (and others do, too) that is objectively measurable, and not based on appearances.

And yeah, I think he intends to get that checked on regularly. I don't know.

But surely the 'difficulty' of getting people's BMI wouldn't be the only reason to object to his policy, right?

jackattack07: that may be. And it may be that my uncle who is 98, and has been smoking a pack a day since he was 12, has healthier lungs than me, a runner. I think the point is not to say that all people who are obese are unhealthy--just like not all people who smoke will get lung cancer (there are outliers of any group who defy the statistics).

The point, I think, was that because there is a general correlation between being obese and health problems, that this guys hospital needs to set an example, just as they do by not hiring smokers.

And so it isn't discrimination based on looks or aesthetics. The guy didn't say he wanted to ban obese people because he hated looking at them. Rather, it was policy to make people be healthier, by trimming down or else...

Now, I don't mean to endorse his suggestions. I don't know what I think about all of this--it all seems pretty drastic to me, and that's why I was asking. But I do think that if his views are wrong, we should at least be careful to state his view correctly.

So, in the interest of being careful, he was not (i) discriminating people based on looks, nor (ii) was he saying that every obese person has corresponding health problems--just that most of them do or will, (as backed up by plenty of studies).

I have a couple of glasses of wine every night.

Sometimes, if I'm feeling too out of control, I'll go on a hiatus. But that doesn't usually last very long.

I love curling up with a good book, and my cat, and drinking a glass (or two) of wine. It's one of the finer pleasures in life.

I also love sharing a bottle with friends and talking for hours. Sometimes until the sun comes up.

I don't know. It's just part of my lifestyle, and one I won't give up, nor do I see why anyone should. I run a lot. I eat healthy. I don't smoke (anymore). And I get my work done. I enjoy drinking at the end of the day. And if you'll join me, even better!

I went as soon as I posted this, and I'm going right now after reading it again today!

I had a bowl of raspberries, a peach, and two cups of coffee. Then I had me a Sunday, post-breakfast nap with my kitten.

Absolutely. This last spring semester for me was a doozy. School was crazy busy.

However, the BEST thing you can do when you're fatigued is to get your tush to the gym or out for a walk. It can be really difficult, but I always have to expend energy to get back energy. I don't mean go crazy or anything. But committing to some cardio for 30 minutes most days of the week really will make you feel better.

When I find I can't get myself motivated (which is often, especially when I'm swamped with other stuff to do), I set up a work-out schedule with a buddy. That way, both of you hold each other accountable. Also, it's much easier to conjure up motivation when there's two of you, and usually you get to gab away to each other while working out so the workout time acts as helpful therapy as well. I don't think I would ever get by without my running girlfriend. In fact, when she's out of town, my discipline plummets.

So is there someone you could workout with, and vent about all of your stresses? It might help. And hey, best of luck and congrats on the wedding!

Congrats on all the successes everyone!

Mine are:

(1) I'm finally a DOCTOR!!!

(Although not the kind that can save people, or the kind you'd want on a plane during a crisis or anything useful to anyone really.)

(2) I also ran 5 miles today in 90 degree weather instead of chilling on a patio and drinking beers with my friends. I joined them after the run.

Actually, now that I think about it, resisting beer and making myself run in the hot humid yuck today was almost as difficult as getting through grad school. Go me!

Original Post by helionix:

Everyone loves a good argument. But in civilized debate, ranters (hehe) should stick to the topic at hand. The OP has already apologized for her offense and has already acknowledged that not all skinny people act this way. Flaming her for past offenses over and over is redundant.

I say this not because I support the OP's argument, but because I feel sorry for her. We can all attempt to be kind, regardless of the point we're trying to make. Many of the comments here are pointlessly cruel.

Fair enough. I just wanted to point out that people have a right to get all up in arms about something if they want, especially in response to a rant (which, by definition, just is to get all up in arms about something).

But you're right. Pointlessly cruel comments are just that--pointlessly cruel.

If everyone can say what they want about anything they want so long as they are RANTING, then I suppose those who rant in response a particular rant are as free to rant as the original rantee. 

Being lenient about rants cuts both ways, right?

For the record, I love reading topics where people disagree, even if (maybe especially if?) each side is emotionally charged. That's how we learn about perspectives different from our own. It's awesome.