Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Have the FunnyJunk newsletter e-mailed to you
Rank #7935 on Comments
Level 317 Comments: Wizard
Send mail to Daeiros
Invite Daeiros to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Highest Content Rank:
Highest Comment Rank:
Content Level Progress:
Level 127 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 128 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress:
Level 317 Comments: Wizard → Level 318 Comments: Wizard
Times Content Favorited:
Total Comments Made:
What people say about Daeiros
latest user's comments
- Not really, it's kinda like a child that keeps trying to touch…
Open the lid to find the gold
Except if nothing goes wrong what's the problem? If a kid touches the stove hundreds of time when it's off, it's fine. Hoping the stove is hot? That's just shitty. Further, politics is a bit too complicated for analogies. Almost always, the importance of detail gets lost in the bias of the speaker when creating analogies, so it doesn't further your argument.
- So what exactly is your solution to this? Pay daycare…
- Ether that, or a balloon popping startled you, causing you to …
Random shit dump 21 ver. 2
- And the admittedly callous counterpoint to that answer is that…
Fat Shaming Friday
That would be a great counter-point, but it's actually arguable. It's not a given that obese people cost more. In fact, several studies have shown the opposite.
It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.
You have to be careful when you look at studies on things like this and make sure you find exactly what they are including in the figures. This study says obesity costs 92k per person.
But they include
and that is 92k over the entire lifetime of the person. Right, so they are saying, 'Well, if an obese person has a shorter lifespan and more time off work, we're losing tax revenue. So that's a cost'.
If you apply that same logic to an anorexic person, who dies at 19 instead of 72 and count their lost earnings and economic productivity, the cost is vastly higher than that of an obese person.
For the record, I'm not pro-obese or anything. But if you're an ER doctor and one guy has been shot in the chest and another guy has a broken finger, you focus on the guy who was shot first. Same deal here. Someone with anorexia is likely to die really quickly and, using either study I've linked, cost the country more. Someone with obesity is going to live a shittier life, and it'll be shorter, and they'll be sick more, and they'll cost us more.
The other thing about these 'costs' when they include potential lost income, is that it a little misleading. An obese guy who is an engineer making 120k per year is going to make a ton more money than a skinny guy who works at the Home Depot making 35k per year. You could take the median income over the lifetime of someone who drops out of high school verse graduates high school and say, 'High School DropOuts cost $200k per person' and you'd be right. And that obese engineer who 'cost' an extra 92k for being obese, he still paid in more to the system than he got out. It's just the system got 92k less than the theoretical figure they would have had.
- Exactly. People don't seem to understand that when they consid…
- My favorite moment in D&D >DMing a game >Par…
Your D&D Stories 31-32
- the break light actually engages before the breaks do, if you …
audi drivers irl
- Yup, orphan statistics are all the rage these days. Just give …
- Costly mistake were made in the past while we were still learn…
I don't doubt that nuclear power nowadays is very stabile and enviromentally friendly, with very, very few cases of meltdown.
I mean.. as long as we stop being dependent on fossil fuels, extreme pollution and actually start reutilizing renewable things such as plastic and metal, anything goes.
what I react on, however, is how people here are so quick to demonize all other sorts of renewable energy and worshipping nuclear power, and if asked about it people either throw a fit or thumb me down without explaining anything as you've seen in this comment section.
and that's one hell of a bad way to promote nuclear power.
and the latest nuclear disaster wasn't even that long ago: Fukushima in Japan, although it was a meltdown caused by a tsunami, if nuclear power is this vulnerable to natural disasters, and if meltdowns like these can be this catastrophic then maybe it's not
weird that it's not listed as a green energy.
- Yeah, it's not reverse psychology, it's just deliberate provoc…
A sad future
Show Comments (3)