Hell, I know a family of people just like them in which everyone is fat. Except the thinner member from the one I know is fatter than the fatter of those in the news, and guess what? THEY ALL HAVE JOBS AND DO WELL AT THEM.
Lazy, lazy fuckers. I really can't stand people like this. I used to see people like this all the time when I worked for Catholic Charities. We gave out food to low-income families (a state sponsored program, so i was watching my taxes at work). That job is also where I worked with a 450lbs. woman. What's a stone? 20lbs?
The family claim to spend £50 a week on food and consume 3,000 calories each a day. The recommended maximum intake is 2,000 for women and 2,500 for men.
That 2000kcl and 2500kcal thing is only if you're as active as the average person. If you sit on your ass all day and burn 1000 calories, that's all you need to take in. A body at rest will burn under 60kcal/hour. They could buy less food and use the extra cash for multi-vitamins, then they get their nutrition and don't have to worry about over-eating.
"We have cereal for breakfast, bacon butties for lunch and microwave pies with mashed potato or chips for dinner," Mrs Chawner told Closer magazine.
"All that healthy food, like fruit and veg, is too expensive. We're fat because it's in our genes. Our whole family is overweight," she added.
Fruits and vegetables are always cheaper than meat. I don't know about the UK, but over here, eggs are cheaper than cereal. And pasta is always pretty cheap. buying prepared foods is always more expensive. Learn how to fucking cook and make your own damn pies instead of buying microwavable ones.
Of course, i could be completely misunderstanding the article. they say funny things.
The biggest difference, though. Is that you're still in relatively good condition. you can go hiking, running, bicycling, kung-fuing, etc. You know Kevin james from king of Queens. As big as he was at his biggest on that show, his Kung Fu instructor, Sifu(sp* Ryan) James and his top student are bigger. They have huge guts and they are the fastest most flexible guys you could even have the misfortune of fighting. And they are both, of course, employed.
When he says "don't use condoms - even to prevent the spread of Aids" it has a significant impact among tens, even hundreds of millions of people.
Getting on for a fifth of Africans are Roman Catholic.
The Church has been growing more quickly in Africa than anywhere else, and this is the Pope's first visit there in the four years he has been the spiritual leader of the world's approximately one billion Catholics.
With Africans - 22 million of whom are infected with HIV - hanging on his every word, that made his statement aboard the plane heading to Cameroon this week all the more significant.
The Pope said the "cruel epidemic" should be tackled through fidelity and abstinence rather than condoms, and that "the traditional teaching of the Church has proven to be the only failsafe way to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids".
An awareness of the Pope's huge position of strength has sharpened the criticism of his remarks, by others with a more liberal approach to preventing the transmission of HIV.
Rebecca Hodes, working in South Africa for the Treatment Action Campaign, was among the most trenchant critics.
She described Pope Benedict's remarks as "alienating", "ignorant" and "pernicious".
Better lives
The Pope is echoing the teaching of his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, whose own advocacy of abstinence was also fiercely criticised, and led to accusations even that he was responsible for the spread of disease.
The Church's case has not been helped in the past when senior figures - including the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo - have insisted that HIV inevitably passes through holes in the latex from which condoms are made, a claim dismissed by the World Health Organization.
However, the Church's concern about condoms is only part of wider teaching aimed at allowing people to live better, more fulfilled lives.
It believes that encouraging people to use condoms to minimise the worst effects of behaviour that in itself impoverishes their lives is to fail them.
Pope Benedict put it this way not long after he took office in 2005. He told African bishops that contraception was among trends leading to a breakdown in sexual morality.
"It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality."
In other words, there is something at stake that is greater even than the fight against Aids - particularly as, in the Church's view, condoms are not as effective as abstinence in combating this deadly infection.
Cultural objections
It is not as though Pope Benedict underestimates HIV, acknowledging that "the virus seriously threatens the economic and social stability of the [African] continent".
However, Catholics point out that if a couple, one of whom had the virus, consistently used a condom they would reduce the yearly risk of passing it on to the uninfected partner by about 87% - which they say falls well short of an adequate means of disease prevention.
Uganda used a policy combining abstinence, fidelity and - only if necessary - the use of condoms, to achieve a significant reduction in the spread of HIV.
Even some senior Roman Catholics take a pragmatic view of the use of condoms.
The Belgian Cardinal Goddfried Daneels said in 2004 that using a condom with the intention of stopping disease was morally different from using one to prevent the creation of life.
He said condoms could be the lesser of the two evils.
Father Gerry O'Collins, Emeritus Professor at the Gregorian University in Rome, said the commandment 'thou shalt not kill', "trumps other issues".
The Catholic aid agency Cafod is bound to uphold the official teaching of the Church, and it makes clear that it does not fund or advocate the supply, distribution or promotion of condoms.
However, Cafod also points out that condoms are particularly effective for people such as prostitutes who are at highest risk of infection.
Aid agencies can find that their biggest challenge is trying to overcome cultural objections to using condoms.
It could be that the way Pope Benedict chose to repeat the Church's teaching about contraception, even at a time when Aids is rampant, was also significant.
He could have included the issue in a major homily at a high-profile mass.
The fact that he dealt with it in the plane to Africa, answering questions from journalists, could be seen as a subtle distancing of his message from realities on the ground.
I honestly just can't stand this. Through misinformation and blind moralism he is condemning millions of children in the future to have AIDS. He's a terrible fucking person, end of story.
EDIT: After discussions with Jakey, I am being a little too hard on one single man, given that he has 1500 years of precedent to hold up to, and there are other religious institutions that are equally responsible. Nonetheless, I contend that he could still end this all just be uttering a few words.
From the same person who was wise enough to see that his weight was his own burden. You're totally disrespecting all of these Africans - saying that they aren't responsible for their own decisions. As far as I'm concerned, if somebody is not responsible for their own decisions, then they are classified as a CHILD.
Oh shit...but what about all of those child sex slaves? FUCK. Screw you, Pope man!
AOKIGAHARA FOREST, Japan (CNN) -- Aokigahara Forest is known for two things in Japan: breathtaking views of Mount Fuji and suicides. Also called the Sea of Trees, this destination for the desperate is a place where the suicidal disappear, often never to be found in the dense forest.
Taro, a 46-year-old man fired from his job at an iron manufacturing company, hoped to fade into the blackness. "My will to live disappeared," said Taro. "I'd lost my identity, so I didn't want to live on this earth. That's why I went there."
Taro, who did not want to be identified fully, was swimming in debt and had been evicted from his company apartment. He lost financial control, which he believes to be the foundation of any stable life, he said. "You need money to survive. If you have a girlfriend, you need money. If you want to get married, you need it for your life. Money is always necessary for your life."
Taro bought a one-way ticket to the forest, west of Tokyo, Japan. When he got there, he slashed his wrists, though the cut wasn't enough to kill him quickly.
He started to wander, he said. He collapsed after days and lay in the bushes, nearly dead from dehydration, starvation and frostbite. He would lose his toes on his right foot from the frostbite. But he didn't lose his life, because a hiker stumbled upon his nearly dead body and raised the alarm. Watch report on "suicide forest" »
Taro's story is just one of hundreds logged at Aokigahara Forest every year, a place known throughout Japan as the "suicide forest." The area is home to the highest number of suicides in the entire country.
Japan's suicide rate, already one of the world's highest, has increased with the recent economic downturn.
There were 2,645 suicides recorded in January 2009, a 15 percent increase from the 2,305 for January 2008, according to the Japanese government.
The Japanese government said suicide rates are a priority and pledged to cut the number of suicides by more than 20 percent by 2016. It plans to improve suicide awareness in schools and workplaces. But officials fear the toll will rise with unemployment and bankruptcies, matching suicide spikes in earlier tough economic times.
"Unemployment is leading to this," said Toyoki Yoshida, a suicide and credit counselor.
"Society and the government need to establish immediate countermeasures to prevent suicides. There should be more places where they can come and seek help."
Yoshida and his fellow volunteer, Norio Sawaguchi, posted signs in Aokigahara Forest urging suicidal visitors to call their organization, a credit counseling service. Both men say Japanese society too often turns a cold shoulder to the unemployed and bankrupt, and breeds a culture where suicide is still seen as an honorable option.
Local authorities, saying they are the last resort to stop people from killing themselves in the forest, have posted security cameras at the entrances of the forest.
The goal, said Imasa Watanabe of the Yamanashi Prefectural Government is to track the people who walk into the forest. Watanabe fears more suicidal visitors will arrive in the coming weeks.
"Especially in March, the end of the fiscal year, more suicidal people will come here because of the bad economy," he said. "It's my dream to stop suicides in this forest, but to be honest, it would be difficult to prevent all the cases here."
One year after his suicide attempt, Taro is volunteering with the credit counseling agency that helped him get back on his feet. He's still living in a shelter and looking for a job. He's ashamed, he said, that he still thinks about suicide.
"I try not to think about it, but I can't say never. For now, the will to live is stronger."
Honestly, the people spreading aids are not the ones who are only having sex with their spouse. The idea that the pope has so much sway with people that be can prevent them from using condoms but not prevent them from having random sex is not his fault. It's true that he's telling people not to use condoms, but he's also telling them not to have sex with prostitutes. And Cardinal Goddfried Daneels is a bad Catholic if he says you can use a condom to prevent disease. If you maintain that world-view, you shouldn't even be having sex unless you intend to procreate. So condoms are completely pointless. You're either making a baby or not having sex. Disease will stay in the family and go no further. Of course, people really only want to obey the papal laws they find convenient. Stop having sex? No way! Stop using a condom and have better sex? OK, Mr. Pope!
A DNA test showed a 13-year-old boy in Britain is not the father of a baby born to a 15-year-old he had unprotected sex with once, The Mirror reported.
Chantelle Stedman told Alfie Patten, who was 12 when he slept with her, he was her newborn daughter Maisie's father.
The story caused a worldwide media frenzy, while politicians criticized what they called Britain's declining morals.
At first Stedman said Patten was the only boy she had ever slept with, but soon after other teens came forward saying they too could be the baby's father, because they claimed to have had sex with the girl.
Last month a friend of the Stedman family claimed Patten was scammed by the girl's parents who wanted to cash in on the sensational story.
Attempt to ensnare boyfriend comes back to bite Indiana woman
MARCH 18--Meet Michelle Owen. Concerned that an ex-boyfriend had used her laptop to search for child pornography, the Indiana woman asked police to search the computer for illegal images, but had her plan backfire when cops discovered two videos of her engaged in illicit acts with a dog. Owen, 24, was charged last week with two felony bestiality counts in connection with the video files, which a detective found in the laptop's "recycle bin." At the time Owen asked cops to search the computer, she was locked up in the Johnson County Jail on a public intoxication charge (which violated the terms of her release in a prior drunk driving case). According to a police affidavit, a copy of which you'll find here, a cop told Owen that he had found videos of her on the laptop and asked if she "knew what those files might be." Owen, pictured in the below mug shot, replied, "The one with the dog." Cops believe that the dog in question, Toby, is a beagle. After asking if she was "going to be charged with this," Owen said that the videos "were just something she did when she was drunk and barely remembers it," adding that she tried to "delete them the next day when she was sober."
The Texas Board of Education approved a science curriculum that opens the door for teachers and textbooks to raise doubts about evolution.
Critics of evolution said they were thrilled with Friday's move. "Texas has sent a clear message that evolution should be taught as a scientific theory open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned," said Dr. John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank that argues an intelligent designer created life.
Kathy Miller, president of the pro-evolution Texas Freedom Network, said, "The board crafted a road map that creationists will use to pressure publishers into putting phony arguments attacking established science into textbooks."
Science standards in Texas resonate across the U.S., since it approves one set of books for the entire state. That makes Texas the nation's single largest market for high-school textbooks.
In the past, publishers often have written texts to its curriculum and marketed them nationally rather than spend time and money reworking them for different states and districts.
That influence has diminished, said Jay Diskey, executive director of the Association of American Publishers' school division, as districts and statewide boards of education have become more likely to scrutinize texts approved in other states. Desktop publishing also has made it easier for companies to amend textbooks to suit different markets.
"It's not necessarily the case" that the Texas curriculum will pop up in other states, Mr. Diskey said. But within Texas, what the board says, goes. Several years ago, the board expressed concern that a description of the Ice Age occurring "millions of years ago" conflicted with biblical timelines. The publisher changed it to "in the distant past." Another publisher sought to satisfy the board by inserting a heading about "strengths and weaknesses of evolution" in a biology text, drawing condemnation from science organizations.
The board will use the new standards to choose new textbooks in 2011.
Friday's meeting started with a victory for backers of evolution. The board voted to remove a longstanding requirement that students analyze the "strengths and weaknesses" of the theory. Mainstream scientists resoundingly reject that language, saying there are no weak links in the theory of evolution, which has been corroborated by discoveries in fields ranging from genetics to geology.
Through the afternoon, board members offered up a series of amendments and counter-amendments designed to shape presentations in biology classes across the state. The board voted down curriculum standards questioning the evolutionary principle that all life on Earth is descended from common ancestry.
Yet the board approved standards that require students to analyze and evaluate the fossil record and the complexity of the cell. Social conservatives on the board, led by chairman Don McLeroy, have made clear they expect books to address those topics by raising questions about the validity of evolutionary theory.
For instance, they want textbooks to suggest the theory of evolution is undercut by fossils that show some organisms -- such as ferns -- haven't changed much over millions of years. They also want texts to discuss the explosion of life forms during the Cambrian Era as inconsistent with the incremental march of evolution.
Scientists respond that the fossil record clearly traces the roots of Cambrian Era creatures back as far as 100 million years.
It isn't just evolution at issue: The board also approved an earth-science curriculum that challenges the widely accepted Big Bang Theory. Students are expected to learn that there are "differing theories" on the "origin and history of the universe."
Board members also deleted a reference to the scientific consensus that the universe is nearly 14 billion years old. The board's chairman has said he believes God created the universe fewer than 10,000 years ago.
Students are expected to learn that there are "differing theories" on the "origin and history of the universe."
That's kind of the approach my biology teacher took in high school with evolution. Believe it or not, one girl in my class announced that she didn't believe in dinosaurs. Everyone kinda laughed at first, they thought she was kidding. And then she made it clear, no, there was no mention of dinosaurs in the bible, therefore she didn't believe in them. We all looked at her for a good while, thinking of questions to ask her, but... I dunno. It just didn't seem appropriate to call her out on why that was ridiculous. We all just sort of fell into an awkward silence until the teacher moved on to something else to talk about.
I overheard a classmate in my teaching course the other day giving her opinion of the matter of teaching evolution in schools, and she said it should be an optional topic, but that it shouldn't be required for the students to learn. I wanted to ask her if, in that case, they should also make algebra an optional subject; however, same as in high school, I decided it would be best to avoid getting into an argument about it.
That's ridiculous though. Not teaching evolution, because it conflicts with the bible? Many scientific things have been found to conflict with the bible, I think history has very clearly established that the bible is not always right. This shouldn't even be a debate.
For instance, they want textbooks to suggest the theory of evolution is undercut by fossils that show some organisms -- such as ferns -- haven't changed much over millions of years.
That fucking lends credence to the theory because it shows that if an organism is suited to it current environment, any mutations will not likely be a significant advantage in reproduction. I hate tehse fucking assholes who can't even understand what a theory is so they say it isn't even a possibility and then the only otehr possible alternative is the fucking Bible! That's it. I think I have no choice but to just start killing people off. It's for the good of teh world.
You're exactly right, they don't know what a theory is.
They might as well go the whole nine yards with this and try to bring geocentrism back into the classroom, because that's more akin to the bible. After all, the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun is just a theory too. It should be critically considered by all students.
And Lauren, dinosaur fossils were secretly planted there by the devil a few thousand years ago as a giant conspiracy to turn people away from Christianity.
Edit: It looks like some people are already working on geocentrism, at www.fixedearth.com
Why... why would anyone do that!? There's so much evidence to prove them wrong! If people would maybe thing for themselves instead of trying to hide behind a book which may or may not be completely untrue, and is most definitely partly untrue! GAH! I'm going to say that I don't mind religion, but I DESPISE the people who let it get in the way of accepting, or even listening to, things that are almost assuredly FACTS.
Why are these people always on the school board? And why do websites set up by them always look like they were designed by an 8th grader for a school project?
I think we already know. The basis of the theory is that the universe is so complex and has so many amazingly symbiotic systems that it must have been created by an intelligent power (not "God"). It is by its very nature flawed as a theory because it does not meet the most basic criteria for a theory. It has absolutely no basis. It is a completely arbitrary scenario established only to be an alternative to evolution because evolution is not 100% provable. on its own, it doesn't even have a point of reference from which to begin an argument. It is the ultimate circular logic. I haven't watched the link you just posted yet. So they may have new info and i might be a bigger asshole than I realized. I'll find out tomorrow.
I think we already know. The basis of the theory is that the universe is so complex and has so many amazingly symbiotic systems that it must have been created by an intelligent power (not "God"). It is by its very nature flawed as a theory because it does not meet the most basic criteria for a theory. It has absolutely no basis. It is a completely arbitrary scenario established only to be an alternative to evolution because evolution is not 100% provable. on its own, it doesn't even have a point of reference from which to begin an argument. It is the ultimate circular logic. I haven't watched the link you just posted yet. So they may have new info and i might be a bigger asshole than I realized. I'll find out tomorrow.
Yes, I do think you already know. But it does have a few interesting tidbits like irreducible complexity, which is quite interesting. Which reminds me, if you don't have the full two hours to spend, just watch chapter eight.
Comments
They should be bus drivers, that seems to be a common fat person occupation.
Of course, i could be completely misunderstanding the article. they say funny things.
Responsibility yo.
Also, change of pace, more Fuck-the-Pope news. This makes me so angry I can't think straight.
Why the Pope opposes condoms
I honestly just can't stand this. Through misinformation and blind moralism he is condemning millions of children in the future to have AIDS. He's a terrible fucking person, end of story.
EDIT: After discussions with Jakey, I am being a little too hard on one single man, given that he has 1500 years of precedent to hold up to, and there are other religious institutions that are equally responsible. Nonetheless, I contend that he could still end this all just be uttering a few words.
Oh shit...but what about all of those child sex slaves? FUCK. Screw you, Pope man!
UPDATE
Report: British Boy, 13, Isn't the Dad of Teen's Baby
ALSO:
Porn Sting Goes To The Dogs
AA might be a good place for her.
Also, that poor boy!! See, told ya it was all the girls fault. I knew there was something way wrong with her. Slut.
I overheard a classmate in my teaching course the other day giving her opinion of the matter of teaching evolution in schools, and she said it should be an optional topic, but that it shouldn't be required for the students to learn. I wanted to ask her if, in that case, they should also make algebra an optional subject; however, same as in high school, I decided it would be best to avoid getting into an argument about it.
That's ridiculous though. Not teaching evolution, because it conflicts with the bible? Many scientific things have been found to conflict with the bible, I think history has very clearly established that the bible is not always right. This shouldn't even be a debate.
They might as well go the whole nine yards with this and try to bring geocentrism back into the classroom, because that's more akin to the bible. After all, the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun is just a theory too. It should be critically considered by all students.
And Lauren, dinosaur fossils were secretly planted there by the devil a few thousand years ago as a giant conspiracy to turn people away from Christianity.
Edit: It looks like some people are already working on geocentrism, at www.fixedearth.com
In conclusion, CAAAAAAPS.
Yes, I do think you already know. But it does have a few interesting tidbits like irreducible complexity, which is quite interesting. Which reminds me, if you don't have the full two hours to spend, just watch chapter eight.