Cuba Mall beggars

[Paul in NZ]

I'm not exactly known for being a heartless prick but bloody hell… Enough is enough already.

There was a beggar or a group of them at every ATM up Cuba Mall.. It’s quite annoying – not really intimidating except for the group of fat fucks by the Starmart on the corner of Ghuznee st. There’s like 6 of the fuckers there today..

Cuba Mall has always attracted its fair share of interesting street life. Part of the attraction I guess but it’s getting bloody ridiculous..
I know this is mostly a mental health issue but its getting bloody ridiculous… The bastards are usually smoking and deliberately targeting the area around the ATM. It in no way makes me feel like giving them anything…

[5150]

Pity they don't congregate outside the Beehive.... :rolleyes:

[Paul in NZ]

Pity they don't congregate outside the Beehive.... :rolleyes:


Traditionally congregations outside the beehive get very little notice.... Remember the bikeoi?

[caspernz]

Traditionally congregations outside the beehive get very little notice.... Remember the bikeoi?

Try wearing a burka

[BuzzardNZ]

Willis Street is also pretty bad, especially outside the New World Metro.

[unstuck]

It in no way makes me feel like giving them anything…

No problem then. Jog on.:msn-wink:

[Paul in NZ]

No problem then. Jog on.:msn-wink:

Yeah no worries for me but the ladies I work with wont go out to use the atm....

[Paul in NZ]

Try wearing a burka

Mate - I'm 100% burk....

[Akzle]

there's no such thing as fat AND poor people.


sad indictment on your society though.

[Paul in NZ]

there's no such thing as fat AND poor people.


sad indictment on your society though.

Fuck it - stop making sense and saying shit I agree with... Its very disturbing

[Tazz]

So the rest of the world has been dealing with this for a looong time. Shame it's finally catching up here.
Had a dude in Serbia saying he was short money of a bus ticket to get home for Christmas so I took him to the counter to buy him the ticket and he got all antsy and fucked off. They're Orthodox so I had a hunch :laugh: Good way to sort out the cons from the needs if you're happy to help where you can sometimes. Same with buying food or paying a bill for people instead of giving them change.

We already have some, but expect to see more and more quite forceful people 'collecting for charity' on the street as well.


there's no such thing as fat AND poor people.


sad indictment on your society though.

Unless it's kwashiorkori, which is pretty unlikely here, and just the stomach.

[buggerit]

there's no such thing as fat AND poor people.


sad indictment on your society though.

Rockstar economy?:lol:Fred and Barney would fit right in:headbang:

[oldrider]

Try wearing a burka

Burkas for sale or rent - bombs 'll cost ya 50cents la dee da de dah! :whistle:

[Banditbandit]

Yeah no worries for me but the ladies I work with wont go out to use the atm....

A new money-saving scheme then ....

Or ...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Gmg8Ns4aXbc/UEAMh02e_QI/AAAAAAAAE4U/3znMKXOPX8U/s400/boob-b-27-8-2012.jpg

[PrincessBandit]

Wasn't there an article not long ago in the media about fake Buddhist monks and nuns (the terminology used in the article) "collecting" to raise funds to "restore their temple back home"?

My stock answer to them all is sorry, me and cash are not friends.

[F5 Dave]

Lad came up to me last week with a story about needing a couple of bucks to get the bus into town for a job interview. Presumably enough people had told him to 'get a job' whilst hustling that this was his iron cast excuse, he rubbed a couple of coins together to show he had some money. I just said sorry bud cause I didn't believe him.

What I should have said was I was doing the employer a service if it was lunch time and he still was so disorganised he hadn't arranged to get into town somehow, - what chance would he turn up to work?
Course he returned to his group of friends & I saw him later walking to the mall with them. Sure bud.

[rustyrobot]

Lad came up to me last week with a story about needing a couple of bucks to get the bus into town for a job interview.

Yep - I've had that one before too in the same place. Along with - money to get to a funeral, money for the bus to Johnsonville/Petone/Stokes Valley, money for medicine for the children. I go to the farmers markets in Newtown every week and it's like running a gauntlet, there are regularly 4 or 5 beggars lined up on the way in.

I thought the city council idea seemed pretty solid - if you really want to help them then donate to one of the groups that provides support (city mission, night shelter, etc.) Same general rule applies to those charity beggars who try to sign you up for monthly donations (and won't take one off payments), and pigeons - if you give them something it'll just encourage them.

Generally though, I find that sticking on a pair of earphones works a charm, even if you aren't listening to anything.

[Murray]

A new money-saving scheme then ....

Or ...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Gmg8Ns4aXbc/UEAMh02e_QI/AAAAAAAAE4U/3znMKXOPX8U/s400/boob-b-27-8-2012.jpg

Shouldnt that read "need money for motor bike gear"

[Akzle]

I thought the city council idea seemed pretty solid - if you really want to help them then donate to one of the groups that provides support (city mission, night shelter, etc.)

why should any of those groups exist? either the on-the-streeters or the charities to help them?

why apply a temporary patch, why not fix the actual problem?

again. a sad indictment on your society.

[jasonu]

Lad came up to me last week with a story about needing a couple of bucks to get the bus into town for a job interview. Presumably enough people had told him to 'get a job' whilst hustling that this was his iron cast excuse, he rubbed a couple of coins together to show he had some money. I just said sorry bud cause I didn't believe him.

What I should have said was I was doing the employer a service if it was lunch time and he still was so disorganised he hadn't arranged to get into town somehow, - what chance would he turn up to work?
Course he returned to his group of friends & I saw him later walking to the mall with them. Sure bud.

You prolly didn't have any dosh to give him anyway...

[scumdog]

there's no such thing as fat AND poor people.


sad indictment on your society though.

You to add "who smoke and/or drink"

But true otherwise.

[rustyrobot]

there's no such thing as fat AND poor people.


Of course there is. The cheapest food is calorie high and nutrient poor. Look at the cost of a loaf of crap white bread compared to decent bread, the cost of fizzy drink compared to juice, the cost of crappy sausages compared to healthy cuts of meat or fish, look at the ever rising cost of vegetables compared to cheap pre-packaged food.

It's much easier to fill a hungry belly with poor quality food if you don't have any money.

'tis indeed a poor indictment on our society.

[Akzle]

You to add "who smoke and/or drink"

But true otherwise.

no. Drinkn or smokin dont make you fat. Does make ya poor. (government is clever like that)

[scumdog]

no. Drinkn or smokin dont make you fat. Does make ya poor. (government is clever like that)

No, drink and smokes when you can't afford them KEEP you poor.

[Akzle]

Of course there is. The cheapest food is calorie high and nutrient poor. Look at the cost of a loaf of crap white bread compared to decent bread, the cost of fizzy drink compared to juice, the cost of crappy sausages compared to healthy cuts of meat or fish, look at the ever rising cost of vegetables compared to cheap pre-packaged food.

It's much easier to fill a hungry belly with poor quality food if you don't have any money.

'tis indeed a poor indictment on our society.

bullshit. thats just ignorance, and loads of public misinformation (food pyramid anyone) it may cost more to buy quality, but you need to eat less.
i can bet i was one of the few on the bene that managed bacon and eggs brekkie most days. And cashew nuts, salmon, etc. And smokes. And not end up a fattie.

[Murray]

bullshit. thats just ignorance, and loads of public misinformation (food pyramid anyone) it may cost more to buy quality, but you need to eat less.
i can bet i was one of the few on the bene that managed bacon and eggs brekkie most days. And cashew nuts, salmon, etc. And smokes. And not end up a fattie.

so what on that diet you never got a fattie???

[BuzzardNZ]

Fact: None of those Cuba Mall scumbags are fat. Niggers yes, but not fat!

[Paul in NZ]

Fact: None of those Cuba Mall scumbags are fat. Niggers yes, but not fat!

The ones down by the Ghuznee st starmart are....

[Ulsterkiwi]

no. Drinkn or smokin dont make you fat. Does make ya poor. (government is clever like that)

smoking suppresses your appetite, will give you that, the smokes will give you cancer, or emphysema, or COPD, or screws up your cardiovascular system, or your brain, or all of them.....great stuff...

Drinking...ever heard of a beer gut? Cmon Akzle, you know booze has a very calorific level with little nutritional value. You could admittedly drink loads which would improve your cholesterol status and encourage your system to make more HDL cholesterol, your liver will be cirrhosed but hey who needs a liver eh?

[Akzle]

Drinking...ever heard of a beer gut? Cmon Akzle, you know booze has a very calorific level with little nutritional value. You could admittedly drink loads which would improve your cholesterol status and encourage your system to make more HDL cholesterol, your liver will be cirrhosed but hey who needs a liver eh?

ever met a fat (practicing) alcoholic? or any alcoholic for that matter?

if you drink and don't eat (because you're poor or some shit) your body will actually change to burn the fuel you're giving it. thus, alcoholics are skinny.

if you drink a fuck ton of lion red and eat a stack of white bread slathered with polyunsaturated monoassenaise and bad mutcher "sausages" with 60% sugar 40% salt budget "tomato sauce", then yes. you'll get fat, because your meat suit is fucking confused.

what goes in does entirely affect how the body performs, alcohol alone, in no way leads to being a fattie.

[Akzle]

the smokes will give you cancer, or emphysema, or COPD, or screws up your cardiovascular system, or your brain,

i'd really love to see any actual-factual fucking thing that links these things. because, due to the number of old cunts i know that have smoked since they were born, it smells a lot like bullshit.

emphysema i can almost accept due to the nature of lungs and inhaling concentrated particulates (mdf sawdust anyone?) but everything else is just crap, and there are far, far too many factors that would affect any kind of empiracal (controlled) test for such shit.

just because they ask hospitalised cunts "do you smoke" ticking the "yes" doesn't mean that's what's caused all you fucking problems
"are you a desk monkey, sitting in your car for 3 hours a day, your office for 8, then in front of the tv for 4?" might be a more pertinent one,
or "do you drink more than 3 cups of coffee", alcohol consumption, sleep, rest, diet, exposure to diesel exhaust, saw dust, VOC, radiomagnetic spectrum bombardment, EMF, being a fat cunt, prescription medication.

on, and on, and on.
and you're still statistically more likely to die in a vehicular manner. what's the health system doing about THAT?

[unstuck]

i'd really love to see any actual-factual fucking thing that links these things. because, due to the number of old cunts i know that have smoked since they were born, it smells a lot like bullshit.

emphysema i can almost accept due to the nature of lungs and inhaling concentrated particulates (mdf sawdust anyone?) but everything else is just crap, and there are far, far too many factors that would affect any kind of empiracal (controlled) test for such shit.

just because they ask hospitalised cunts "do you smoke" ticking the "yes" doesn't mean that's what's caused all you fucking problems
"are you a desk monkey, sitting in your car for 3 hours a day, your office for 8, then in front of the tv for 4?" might be a more pertinent one,
or "do you drink more than 3 cups of coffee", alcohol consumption, sleep, rest, diet, exposure to diesel exhaust, saw dust, VOC, radiomagnetic spectrum bombardment, EMF, being a fat cunt, prescription medication.

on, and on, and on.
and you're still statistically more likely to die in a vehicular manner. what's the health system doing about THAT?

Agreed.:niceone:

[Ulsterkiwi]

ever met a fat (practicing) alcoholic? or any alcoholic for that matter?

yes to both questions. I am curious why you would think I do not know anyone who is an alcoholic.



if you drink and don't eat (because you're poor or some shit) your body will actually change to burn the fuel you're giving it. thus, alcoholics are skinny.

if you drink a fuck ton of lion red and eat a stack of white bread slathered with polyunsaturated monoassenaise and bad mutcher "sausages" with 60% sugar 40% salt budget "tomato sauce", then yes. you'll get fat, because your meat suit is fucking confused.

what goes in does entirely affect how the body performs, alcohol alone, in no way leads to being a fattie.

Apply your own standards to your own comments Akzle. Dont twist what I said and don't respond with half the story. I didnt say that that alcohol alone leads to being a fattie. What I said was alcohol intake can be and is linked to body fat status. There is a high carb content with alcoholic drinks, too high a carb intake and the body stores the excess energy it does not need right then as fat. Nutrition 101.

If you drink alcohol and dont eat (whatever the reason, as poverty is potentially only part of the story) then yes your body will change. Those changes will include alterations in your neuro-endocrine status which will suppress the body in a general sense. The changes also include influencing the digestive systems ability to process food, even healthy food. To simply say "your body will to burn the fuel you're giving it. Thus, alcoholics are skinny" shows that once again you know a little bit and because of that are convinced of knowing the complete story. That is a vast oversimplification of what happens when a person becomes dependent on alcohol. Likewise not all alcoholics are skinny, which was my point.

[Akzle]

yes to both questions. I am curious why you would think I do not know anyone who is an alcoholic.
did i say that or are you infering more than what was said?
a functioning alcoholic may be fat. they may also hold down a job, so yes, i was speaking more to the other end of the spectrum, ie, those on the street, those genuinely poor, ie, what the thread is about.


Apply your own standards to your own comments Akzle. Dont twist what I said and don't respond with half the story.
i don't believe i did in any large way.. certain... extrapolation and some artistic license... but not twisting your balls.


What I said was alcohol intake can be and is linked to body fat status. There is a high carb content with alcoholic drinks, too high a carb intake and the body stores the excess energy it does not need right then as fat. Nutrition 101.
can ≠ does.
and this is entirely pertinent to the comments concerning diet. carbohydrates should not be the base of any diet.
and it is only SOME beverages that have the carb content (like beersies) whereas the distilled beverages, and i'm going to poke a guess at the RTDs, do not.
RTDs= high sugar (short chain carbs) but these are processed man-mediately, and not stored.


If you drink alcohol and dont eat (whatever the reason, as poverty is potentially only part of the story) then yes your body will change.
mhm


Those changes will include alterations in your neuro-endocrine status which will suppress the body in a general sense. The changes also include influencing the digestive systems ability to process food, even healthy food.
distracto-bullshit



To simply say "your body will to burn the fuel you're giving it. Thus, alcoholics are skinny" shows that once again you know a little bit and because of that are convinced of knowing the complete story.
again, i'm speaking to the poor end of the spectrum. and i believe i qualified it with a replacing food with alcohol scenario.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39-natKpnkA



Likewise not all alcoholics are skinny, which was my point.
if that were your only point we wouldn't be having this repartee.

[Ulsterkiwi]

i'd really love to see any actual-factual fucking thing that links these things. because, due to the number of old cunts i know that have smoked since they were born, it smells a lot like bullshit.

emphysema i can almost accept due to the nature of lungs and inhaling concentrated particulates (mdf sawdust anyone?) but everything else is just crap, and there are far, far too many factors that would affect any kind of empiracal (controlled) test for such shit.

just because they ask hospitalised cunts "do you smoke" ticking the "yes" doesn't mean that's what's caused all you fucking problems
"are you a desk monkey, sitting in your car for 3 hours a day, your office for 8, then in front of the tv for 4?" might be a more pertinent one,
or "do you drink more than 3 cups of coffee", alcohol consumption, sleep, rest, diet, exposure to diesel exhaust, saw dust, VOC, radiomagnetic spectrum bombardment, EMF, being a fat cunt, prescription medication.

on, and on, and on.
and you're still statistically more likely to die in a vehicular manner. what's the health system doing about THAT?

ok, I will bite

What we are talking about, in part at least, are risk factors and contributing factors. Absolutely there will be "old cunts" who smoked all their life and didn't get cancer. In much the same way not everyone who does dangerous shit dies doing it but they ran a risk all the same.
When a person dies, there will be factors which have contributed to that death. Smoking can and does shorten lifespans.
Lets take the lungs. Have you ever seen the lungs of a smoker, in real life? I have, its not pretty. What happens is the cellular mechanisms to remove the rubbish and detritus accumulated when we breath gets shut down. The macrophages responsible for keeping our lungs clean get overwhelmed by the crap in the smoke. Thats bad enough but eventually the epithelial cells responsible for gaseous exchange become overwhelmed, we have fewer of them available which are functioning properly and eventually we have trouble breathing. Thats COPD. Throw in a tumour which physically invades and destroys the surrounding tissue and your troubles just got a whole lot worse.

Who said smoking is the cause of all problems?

Anyway, you dont want to hear about that, it doesnt suit you.

Heres a suggestion. You want facts? Try this

Open another tab in your browser.
Run a search for Google Scholar.
On that page run another search with the following as the parameters "Cancer and Smoking".
Read.
If there are actual scientific papers and not some half-arsed-pub-wisdom-inspired-self fulfilling-ignoramus-repeated rants that appear but you cannot get access to, PM me an email address, I will get you the pdf files and you can knock yourself out with some actual study.


Here is an example of why you need to try the above....

and you're still statistically more likely to die in a vehicular manner. what's the health system doing about THAT?

Go the the Ministry of Health website and get the figures, explain to me how they have got it so wrong and why thousands of people are not dying of cancer, heart disease, stroke, COPD, diabetes, infection or suicide but actually what took them out was death by vehicular manner. How have they got away with this scandalous lie for so long!

[Ulsterkiwi]

distracto-bullshit

whatever that is, but its still true




if that were your only point we wouldn't be having this repartee.

yes be we both enjoy robust discussion and it makes your days go by quicker before you bury your latest hooker.

[Akzle]

What we are talking about, in part at least, are risk factors and contributing factors.
so, just to clip another long parapgraph in the butt, you are saying smoking is only a risk factor?


Smoking can and does shorten lifespans.
never seen it.


Lets take the lungs. Have you ever seen the lungs of a smoker, in real life?
no, but i'm fairly sure that everything else i listed off in the last post contributes equally as much, or more than cigarette smoke, i'm fairly sure i acknowledged the harm particulate can cause.



Open another tab in your browser.
Run a search for Google Scholar.
On that page run another search with the following as the parameters "Cancer and Smoking".
Read.

If there are actual scientific papers and not some half-arsed-pub-wisdom-inspired-self fulfilling-ignoramus-repeated rants that appear but you cannot get access to, PM me an email address, I will get you the pdf files and you can knock yourself out with some actual study.

i could do any or all of that, except i actually give very few fucks. i don't hold teh govt or even modern medicine and purported 'scientists' in high regard, due largely to the fact that a) they don't know fuckall, b) it wasn't THAT long ago that the earth was the centre of the universe, pluto was a planet and fuck knows what else c) they have an agenda and are hugely affected by money d) it just doesn't fucking matter.
( e) it's a huge waste of public money)
(oooh, he rejects science... boo, hiss, must be crazy.)

so the pub story (which i can observe, feel, and interact with) stands. the day i can't run rings around a non-smoker, i'll consider what of my lifestyle needs to change



Go the the Ministry of Health website and get the figures,
again with that "trusting the government not to lie to you" thing.
statistics can be tortured to tell any truth you can afford them to.
the ministry of health isn't actually interested in health, it's the ministry-of-continued-illness-so-that-pharmaceutical-companies-can-profit-off-the-sheeple
(oooh, there goes another nutty conspiracy!, sharpen the pitchforks boys, we got a rabble rouser!)
one of mashy's vids lead to one called "the truth behind your enslavement" - it involved the concept of human farming. i wonder what you'd have to say about it, as it relates to this, but also in general.

[ElCoyote]

Pity they don't congregate outside the Beehive.... :rolleyes:

Actually I thought they all congregated inside the beehive,
in particular the top floor

[Edbear]

ok, I will bite

What we are talking about, in part at least, are risk factors and contributing factors. Absolutely there will be "old cunts" who smoked all their life and didn't get cancer. In much the same way not everyone who does dangerous shit dies doing it but they ran a risk all the same.
When a person dies, there will be factors which have contributed to that death. Smoking can and does shorten lifespans.
Lets take the lungs. Have you ever seen the lungs of a smoker, in real life? I have, its not pretty. What happens is the cellular mechanisms to remove the rubbish and detritus accumulated when we breath gets shut down. The macrophages responsible for keeping our lungs clean get overwhelmed by the crap in the smoke. Thats bad enough but eventually the epithelial cells responsible for gaseous exchange become overwhelmed, we have fewer of them available which are functioning properly and eventually we have trouble breathing. Thats COPD. Throw in a tumour which physically invades and destroys the surrounding tissue and your troubles just got a whole lot worse.

Who said smoking is the cause of all problems?

Anyway, you dont want to hear about that, it doesnt suit you.

Heres a suggestion. You want facts? Try this

Open another tab in your browser.
Run a search for Google Scholar.
On that page run another search with the following as the parameters "Cancer and Smoking".
Read.
If there are actual scientific papers and not some half-arsed-pub-wisdom-inspired-self fulfilling-ignoramus-repeated rants that appear but you cannot get access to, PM me an email address, I will get you the pdf files and you can knock yourself out with some actual study.


Here is an example of why you need to try the above....


Go the the Ministry of Health website and get the figures, explain to me how they have got it so wrong and why thousands of people are not dying of cancer, heart disease, stroke, COPD, diabetes, infection or suicide but actually what took them out was death by vehicular manner. How have they got away with this scandalous lie for so long!


so, just to clip another long parapgraph in the butt, you are saying smoking is only a risk factor?


never seen it.


no, but i'm fairly sure that everything else i listed off in the last post contributes equally as much, or more than cigarette smoke, i'm fairly sure i acknowledged the harm particulate can cause.



i could do any or all of that, except i actually give very few fucks. i don't hold teh govt or even modern medicine and purported 'scientists' in high regard, due largely to the fact that a) they don't know fuckall, b) it wasn't THAT long ago that the earth was the centre of the universe, pluto was a planet and fuck knows what else c) they have an agenda and are hugely affected by money d) it just doesn't fucking matter.
( e) it's a huge waste of public money)
(oooh, he rejects science... boo, hiss, must be crazy.)

so the pub story (which i can observe, feel, and interact with) stands. the day i can't run rings around a non-smoker, i'll consider what of my lifestyle needs to change



again with that "trusting the government not to lie to you" thing.
statistics can be tortured to tell any truth you can afford them to.
the ministry of health isn't actually interested in health, it's the ministry-of-continued-illness-so-that-pharmaceutical-companies-can-profit-off-the-sheeple
(oooh, there goes another nutty conspiracy!, sharpen the pitchforks boys, we got a rabble rouser!)
one of mashy's vids lead to one called "the truth behind your enslavement" - it involved the concept of human farming. i wonder what you'd have to say about it, as it relates to this, but also in general.

So I guess that's a "No" to doing any proper research on it for yourself, then? :scratch:

[Akzle]

Actually I thought they all congregated inside the beehive,
in particular the top floor

nono. that's the fat buggers( and fat cats), not the fat beggars.

[Akzle]

So I guess that's a "No" to doing any proper research on it for yourself, then? :scratch:

do you smoke, ed?

[Ulsterkiwi]

so, just to clip another long parapgraph in the butt, you are saying smoking is only a risk factor?

selective quoting, no, I am saying it is a risk factor AND has also been clearly demonstrated to be a contributing factor. The link is a correlation and has been shown to be causation. What I am NOT saying is that all who smoke will die directly from the effects of smoking. Risk however is significantly raised.


no, but i'm fairly sure that everything else i listed off in the last post contributes equally as much, or more than cigarette smoke, i'm fairly sure i acknowledged the harm particulate can cause.

yes you did. Would this be distracto-bullshit? I am fairly sure I did not say other particulates will not contribute to respiratory pathologies.




i could do any or all of that, except i actually give very few fucks. i don't hold teh govt or even modern medicine and purported 'scientists' in high regard, due largely to the fact that a) they don't know fuckall, b) it wasn't THAT long ago that the earth was the centre of the universe, pluto was a planet and fuck knows what else c) they have an agenda and are hugely affected by money d) it just doesn't fucking matter.
( e) it's a huge waste of public money)
(oooh, he rejects science... boo, hiss, must be crazy.)

No, that's cool. Not that you need my permission but if you want to reject science that is up to you.
What I find ironic is you ask for someone to show you evidence, you even use the word empirical (that is how to spell it btw) and when an offer of such evidence is made, you reject it because you give very few fucks.
Presumably you either never get sick or when you do going to see a doctor or other health practitioner is not what you do?
For sure there have been people who perpetuated myth, does that mean we should reject new knowledge or understanding if it explodes the myth? I tend to think that my education first and foremost reminds me that my education and learning is a process, not a goal and there is always something new to be learned.
I also find it ironic that you make noises about rejecting science but will discuss that on the net, via a computer.


so the pub story (which i can observe, feel, and interact with) stands.

sure, lived experience is of equal importance to knowledge.


the day i can't run rings around a non-smoker, i'll consider what of my lifestyle needs to change

again, fair choice. The risk of course is that the time you need to change will happen long before you can no longer run said rings. Not a very empirical way to make that assessment.



again with that "trusting the government not to lie to you" thing.
statistics can be tortured to tell any truth you can afford them to.
the ministry of health isn't actually interested in health, it's the ministry-of-continued-illness-so-that-pharmaceutical-companies-can-profit-off-the-sheeple
(oooh, there goes another nutty conspiracy!, sharpen the pitchforks boys, we got a rabble rouser!)

not all data is produced by the government. Its disingenuous to suggest that all those engaged in scientific enquiry are by definition engaged in an agenda to control and suppress.

There are thousands of individuals who work within the health system who would be a bit offended by your inference that there is no genuine interest in the health of the community. You might say that's not what you said. You are clearly smart enough to know that language is a subtle thing and inference can be made without directly stating things. As a net troll you have achieved semi-professional status in getting under people's skins but it would be admirable if you could at least acknowledge the vast majority are genuinely doing their best for others in this respect.

Its not a nutty conspiracy. I believe in democracy, I believe in the ability of people to question and probe and call to account. I believe there are ways to do that which are more helpful or constructive but somewhere in the mix someone has to be cynical enough to call foul. The problem with your approach I believe is that its more akin to crying wolf.




one of mashy's vids lead to one called "the truth behind your enslavement" - it involved the concept of human farming. i wonder what you'd have to say about it, as it relates to this, but also in general.

I don't know enough about this idea to comment. I would however be willing to learn.

[Edbear]

do you smoke, ed?

Nope! And don't say, "Don't knock it until you've tried it," either, as that is the dumbest thing to say.

[Big Dog]

I used to smoke. Life got a lot better when I got out from under that millstone.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Ulsterkiwi]

one of mashy's vids lead to one called "the truth behind your enslavement" - it involved the concept of human farming. i wonder what you'd have to say about it, as it relates to this, but also in general.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

if that's the one you are talking about its a pretty frickin bleak outlook on life. Sure its possible that we are simply farm animals. If I was to accept the argument however I would be just as well off to take myself out now.

Have you ever read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"? George Orwell's "1984" (alluded to in the video) or "Animal Farm" Have you ever watched "The Matrix"? Heck, what about Thomas More's "Utopia" that was written in 1516. I guess I am saying its not like this is a new idea. "We are controlled, its not right, lets refuse to buy into this way of life." The video itself demonstrates historical cases of societal systems which have broken down and been replaced. This is evidence that corruption will eventually cause self-destruction, not evidence that the maker of the video has had a new idea.

Will our current society eventually collapse? Probably. Does that mean every aspect of that society is inherently a conspiracy or evil? I do not believe so.

I also do not see any practical coherent alternatives presented, nor explanation of how one might actually exist after "opting out"

[Big Dog]

Poverty is a tool of the wealthy. Not all wealthy persons deliberately use this tool but it exists none the less.
It is the fear of or the actual poverty that leads us to sell our selves 40+ a week. It is how people get other people to do the jobs they don't want to do. Why else would there be no shortage of toilet cleaners?

While the benefit system started out with good intentions, somewhere it has lost its way.
Welfare costs were used to justify cutting education and free tertiary.
Now our welfare system makes it harder to get out of poverty than ever before.

The double cut of can't afford an education and I can afford to live on a benefit kept me in the system for a longer time than it should because it cost me money and time to work and there was no support to get education bit plenty to bludge.

If you want to get rid of the beggars cut back the support networks for those that chose "the life" and increase the opportunities for those willing to work.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Akzle]

selective quoting, no, I am saying it is a risk factor AND has also been clearly demonstrated to be a contributing factor. The link is a correlation and has been shown to be causation. What I am NOT saying is that all who smoke will die directly from the effects of smoking. Risk however is significantly raised.
the words i have issue with here are "clearly" and "significantly", those are abstract qualifiers.
i do not accept it has been clearly shown, and i do not believe the risk is significantly raised.

i do accept that it has been tried to be shown. and i do accept there is correlation.
and i do accept that it does increase the chances (though not significantly) of any number of conditions.




yes you did. Would this be distracto-bullshit? I am fairly sure I did not say other particulates will not contribute to respiratory pathologies.
it's not distraco bullshit in that no empirical study can be undertaken, having smoking as the only variable.

and i never said you did.


What I find ironic is you ask for someone to show you evidence, you even use the word empirical (that is how to spell it btw) and when an offer of such evidence is made, you reject it because you give very few fucks.
how can such data be collected, how can a study be done? just because 40% more doctors smoke camel?
and again, with the interpretation of results (results of presumably (prove me wrong) flawed collection methods)


Presumably you either never get sick
not in the last..... decade, at least. probably more than.

or when you do going to see a doctor or other health practitioner is not what you do? irrelevant as above, but i do make use of the legal pharmaceuticals i can get through such channels, as and when i feel the need to self medicate, and as a last resort.


For sure there have been people who perpetuated myth, does that mean we should reject new knowledge or understanding if it explodes the myth?
not at all. but it's the how, why, and who really cares (and who really benefits) that i'm just as interested in.


I also find it ironic that you make noises about rejecting science but will discuss that on the net, via a computer.
find irony where you will, i'd say that was a matter of invention, rather than science, and a hundred monkeys together for a hundred days could probably cobble together a typewriter...


not all data is produced by the government. Its disingenuous to suggest that all those engaged in scientific enquiry are by definition engaged in an agenda to control and suppress.
money, holmes, money is the control. want funding for studying how the holocaust never happened? want money to study how smoking doesn't cause cancer? or the decline in pirates has lead to global warming? cannabis curing epilepsy in children?(just ie, here, i'm not claiming that shit as fact) good luck getting funding for that...
there IS an agenda, i can't see how that can be denied, even if the mokeys can't see the cage for all the gilt.


There are thousands of individuals who work within the health system who would be a bit offended by your inference that there is no genuine interest in the health of the community.
yeah. maybe, and there's thousands of frustrated cops just "doing their best" and grumble at the policy makers, and there's thousands of lawyers who... well, no, they're all scum.

at that level, maybe not, probably not, even.
and my best off-the-top example of this is the salaries (yes salaries) of the salvation army (that charity)'s CEOs. (google that shit yo)
the foot soldiers are good people, it's the scum that pull the strings (direct/ collect the cash) that are where the fault lies.
and again the bias within that agenda that directs money (seeing a common theme here?) which directs which drugs can be bought/ researched/ used/ prescribed, which treatments are even acknowledged or available (or funded/subsidised)
take arthritis here, the (more expensive (see that theme)) anti-tnf meds are far and away the best thing science(oh the irony!) has found for it, but fucked if you can get it in NZ, becuase... wait, why?


the vast majority are genuinely doing their best for others in this respect.
and i'd like to (and still manage to) believe that true of all people..

except those sneaky jew fucks that control the monies.


The problem with your approach I believe is that its more akin to crying wolf.
calling out a red herring, more like.

[Akzle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

if that's the one you are talking about its a pretty frickin bleak outlook on life. Sure its possible that we are simply farm animals. If I was to accept the argument however I would be just as well off to take myself out now.
would you? would you feel no obligation, to, say, jump on an internet forum and rark up your fellow man, that you may open their eyes, that we may change the world for the better of us?


Have you ever read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"? George Orwell's "1984" (alluded to in the video) or "Animal Farm" Have you ever watched "The Matrix"? Heck, what about Thomas More's "Utopia" that was written in 1516. I guess I am saying its not like this is a new idea.
yes to most of.
and what does "it's not a new idea" prove? except that people are for some reason (too fucking stupid? or scared?) opposed to actually changing it, doing anything about it..
there was a quote from another source "keeping the population as perpetual children" - not responsible, protected from the world by a parent (the govt ie) and all feeling safe and stuff.
i think taking that leap does involve some testicular fortitude which is mainly bred/ taught out of the population.
(next time a cop asks for your license, say no. see how you feel (i'm srs))


Will our current society eventually collapse? Probably.
it's a given.

Does that mean every aspect of that society is inherently a conspiracy or evil? I do not believe so.
no, but where does the responsibility for that lie? as with the health system above, the people on the ground are 99% not-dicks, the we get to roll out "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"


I also do not see any practical coherent alternatives presented, nor explanation of how one might actually exist after "opting out"
a two banger. mashy has a better answer for the former, and if you can tell me just how to "opt out" i'd be fucking stoked
(the system is geared that you can't - but you just have to realise you never really opted in in the first place, but again, the trial for this (pun intended) will be under their rules... if you let them)


Poverty is a tool of the wealthy. Not all wealthy persons deliberately use this tool but it exists none the less.
It is the fear of or the actual poverty that leads us to sell our selves 40+ a week. It is how people get other people to do the jobs they don't want to do. Why else would there be no shortage of toilet cleaners?

While the benefit system started out with good intentions, somewhere it has lost its way.
Welfare costs were used to justify cutting education and free tertiary.
Now our welfare system makes it harder to get out of poverty than ever before.

The double cut of can't afford an education and I can afford to live on a benefit kept me in the system for a longer time than it should because it cost me money and time to work and there was no support to get education bit plenty to bludge.

If you want to get rid of the beggars cut back the support networks for those that chose "the life" and increase the opportunities for those willing to work.

quick funny story, a mate who used to be responsible for hiring toilet-cleaner level employees, whenever asked for "spare change" would offer them a job... shuts them up real fucking fast.

at any rate, i think thats far too simplistic (do this = this happens) view of the problem (mis identified) and the solution (it isn't)

[Ulsterkiwi]

the words i have issue with here are "clearly" and "significantly", those are abstract qualifiers.
i do not accept it has been clearly shown, and i do not believe the risk is significantly raised.

i do accept that it has been tried to be shown. and i do accept there is correlation.
and i do accept that it does increase the chances (though not significantly) of any number of conditions.

perhaps that is because I am using those words with specific meaning in mind.

Clearly is meaning the evidence is unequivocally pointing to the conclusion drawn. Not that the evidence could point to n number of conclusions.

Significantly means significant from a statistical point of few. This is a measure of how likely the thing we are measuring is down to chance. Yes you could call it arbitrary but all measurement is arbitrary if you want to go that far. This way everyone is on the same page. For example, your height could be said to be 6 and mine could be 1.8. On the face of it you are taller but the measurement is important. Once you know one is in feet and the other is in metres we can see the two are pretty much the same.

In this manner both terms are not abstract qualifiers.





it's not distraco bullshit in that no empirical study can be undertaken, having smoking as the only variable.

and i never said you did.


how can such data be collected, how can a study be done? just because 40% more doctors smoke camel?
and again, with the interpretation of results (results of presumably (prove me wrong) flawed collection methods)

ok, you never said that, fair enough.

I wont try to prove you wrong because that is impossible because all study designs have some flaw in them.

One of the marks of good science and which separates it from pseudo-science is that when reported you can see exactly what the design is and the authors will acknowledge the limitations of the study. What you should be able to do is follow the design described and obtain similar results.

Here I have agree that there are parties who will try to spin or misrepresent what the science says. Good science will rarely if ever make sweeping claims or statements because of the mindfulness of limitations.
Government agencies, commercial companies, the media, all of these are not so mindful. I have no issue agreeing with that position. I do struggle to reconcile that with the notion all science should therefore be rejected.





not in the last..... decade, at least. probably more than.
irrelevant as above, but i do make use of the legal pharmaceuticals i can get through such channels, as and when i feel the need to self medicate, and as a last resort.

how is your lived experience of health irrelevant? What about the decade before that? You are telling me you have never been sick enough to warrant intervention? You answer that yourself. So what if its a last resort? You have bought in to the societal idea of medicating based on the knowledge or learning of others within society. I am genuinely fascinated by the idea of opting out of society, part of that fascination is how justification is provided for cherry picking specific aspects of society which are acceptable as suits.



not at all. but it's the how, why, and who really cares (and who really benefits) that i'm just as interested in.

no issue there, accountability and transparency are good things. Ethics are important. Will research benefit anyone for reasons other than profit? All sound principles.



find irony where you will, i'd say that was a matter of invention, rather than science, and a hundred monkeys together for a hundred days could probably cobble together a typewriter...
been watching movies while using the bong have we?



money, holmes, money is the control. want funding for studying how the holocaust never happened? want money to study how smoking doesn't cause cancer? or the decline in pirates has lead to global warming? cannabis curing epilepsy in children?(just ie, here, i'm not claiming that shit as fact) good luck getting funding for that...
there IS an agenda, i can't see how that can be denied, even if the mokeys can't see the cage for all the gilt.

yeah I can accept that. Money is a way to control.



yeah. maybe, and there's thousands of frustrated cops just "doing their best" and grumble at the policy makers, and there's thousands of lawyers who... well, no, they're all scum.

at that level, maybe not, probably not, even.
and my best off-the-top example of this is the salaries (yes salaries) of the salvation army (that charity)'s CEOs. (google that shit yo)
the foot soldiers are good people, it's the scum that pull the strings (direct/ collect the cash) that are where the fault lies.
and again the bias within that agenda that directs money (seeing a common theme here?) which directs which drugs can be bought/ researched/ used/ prescribed, which treatments are even acknowledged or available (or funded/subsidised)
take arthritis here, the (more expensive (see that theme)) anti-tnf meds are far and away the best thing science(oh the irony!) has found for it, but fucked if you can get it in NZ, becuase... wait, why?

we live in an imperfect world. I would have no issue with getting rid of the idea of money as the reward. Its not really likely to work though is it. Not in our lifetime anyway.
I have issue with the way Pharmac operates, again its flawed. Does that mean we should burn the place down and kill everyone who works there? Yeah, nah.



and i'd like to (and still manage to) believe that true of all people..

except those sneaky jew fucks that control the monies.

awwww you are just a big sook underneath it all really aren't you. :msn-wink:

[Ulsterkiwi]

would you? would you feel no obligation, to, say, jump on an internet forum and rark up your fellow man, that you may open their eyes, that we may change the world for the better of us?

no probably not. I feel an obligation to contribute to society and make it better than when I arrived. Maybe that is why I chose the path I did instead of one similar to my wealthier and more 'successful' siblings.



and what does "it's not a new idea" prove? except that people are for some reason (too fucking stupid? or scared?) opposed to actually changing it, doing anything about it..
there was a quote from another source "keeping the population as perpetual children" - not responsible, protected from the world by a parent (the govt ie) and all feeling safe and stuff.
i think taking that leap does involve some testicular fortitude which is mainly bred/ taught out of the population.
(next time a cop asks for your license, say no. see how you feel (i'm srs))

doesn't prove anything by itself, wasn't saying it did, was saying these are ancient problems and not something we can solve in a single generation



a two banger. mashy has a better answer for the former, and if you can tell me just how to "opt out" i'd be fucking stoked
(the system is geared that you can't - but you just have to realise you never really opted in in the first place, but again, the trial for this (pun intended) will be under their rules... if you let them)

that is an honest reply. I am interested in hearing what people can do if they want to change things. I have to say there still seems to be some distance between the ideals and actually living them

[Akzle]

winding this one down.



Clearly is meaning the evidence is unequivocally pointing to the conclusion drawn.
exactly whats in dispute.


Significantly means significant from a statistical point of few. This is a measure of how likely the thing we are measuring is down to chance.
and i'd pin life at 100% chance.


I do struggle to reconcile that with the notion all science should therefore be rejected.
not all, but whenever anyone touts "the company line" my skepticism kicks up about 400 notches


What about the decade before that? You are telling me you have never been sick enough to warrant intervention?
the last time i remember being in hospital was for falling off a cliff, and it was rather at my colleagues insistence. (nearly opened up an artery... i'd have walked it off)
in terms of pathogenic illnesses - none that i can recall. which i attribute to having a fucking stout immune system, despite the touted negative effects of drug abuse, alcoholism and smoking.



So what if its a last resort? You have bought in to the societal idea of medicating based on the knowledge or learning of others within society. I am genuinely fascinated by the idea of opting out of society, part of that fascination is how justification is provided for cherry picking specific aspects of society which are acceptable as suits.
medicating isn't an idea of society, noither. animals self medicate insofar as they are able. if i could have me coca plants on the front porch and me poppies at the back without any untoward attention/ butt secks from your society, i wouldn't have to buy into pharma.

would that i could survive without anyone's input (hookers excepted), but no man is an island and all that.

i find equally disingenuous that because one rejects "society" as it is, they should forgo the technology and live in a grass hut with nought but my piupiu, because "society invented everything else" or some shit.



been watching movies while using the bong have we?
always son, always.



we should burn the place down and kill everyone who works there
now you're getting the hang of it!!!

[Ulsterkiwi]

winding this one down.

:shit: I wore down the Akzleator.

Cheers mate, its always fun. :msn-wink:

[Akzle]

me fucken lawn isn't going to mow itself damn you.
was saying these are ancient problems and not something we can solve in a single generation
thats a fucken defeatist attitude. did you pick it up at school? :bleh:

"this is the way we've always whipped dead horses..."

why the hell not, again resting on my belief that humans are sentient, intelligent, empathetic etc,
why the hell should the problems of/ caused by (mainly white) society, be allowed to perpetuate?
what better place than here?, what better time than now? (Ratm reference, followed by "fuck you i wont do what you tell me")


that is an honest reply. I am interested in hearing what people can do if they want to change things. I have to say there still seems to be some distance between the ideals and actually living them

"be the change" and all that.
i've made it my business to be involved with people pursuing exactly that ideal (opting out), i've *actually* done it myself - legally.
the first step is to see the system for what it actually is. (well, what it's evidenced itself to be... the gilted cage)

while i'm happy to stand on my own two legs for it, doing it against a gang of armed thugs, with no homies behind me... one must pick their battles.

the other issue being land "ownership" (ie, it's all claimed by the crown (but not, really, only the ocean is) and that me going and making camp/ setting up the acreage of garden i'd need anywhere is going to lead to conflict with an "owner".

how to do it? that's your path. my path has worked for me, i'd like to think i've helped more than a few people onto their own paths along the way.

i'm just waiting for the tipping point...:ar15:

[mashman]

how to do it? that's your path. my path has worked for me, i'd like to think i've helped more than a few people onto their own paths along the way.

You have, and it has been passed on so that others can make their own minds up too. As such, I shall add an "Akzle Factor" chapter to my autobiography (thinking about calling it, Memoirs of the Gayshire).

[mashman]

one of mashy's vids lead to one called "the truth behind your enslavement" - it involved the concept of human farming. i wonder what you'd have to say about it, as it relates to this, but also in general.

Dude puts it well.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A