SG Broadband Community

Scott wrote:Weak. "Oh no, now what do I do, oh I know, throw the 'you just don't get it' out there.". Point is, who ****ing cares? You don't have the right not be offended, especially when you do plenty of offending yourself.

Meh.....you missed it too....and are you the judge and jury here?...puhleease

if you would have read the thread thoroughly you'd realize I don't give a rats ass either. I was bored and argued the side of the Y.

Izzo wrote:Meh.....you missed it too....and are you the judge and jury here?...puhleease

Judge and jury of what? You're worried about what a bunch of soccer moms are doing in their YMCA? It's not even you're concern.

I'm no more a judge and jury than you are, you just seem to think your opinion is more important than others, and when challenged, you resort to childish responses, much like Brent.

Scott wrote:Judge and jury of what? You're worried about what a bunch of soccer moms are doing in their YMCA? It's not even you're concern.

I'm no more a judge and jury than you are, you just seem to think your opinion is more important than others, and when challenged, you resort to childish responses, much like Brent.

I'll decide what is my concern ...this is a forum after all.

...you're just pissed cuz I argued with your woman.


edit>>...and my opinions are about as worthless as yours and hers are.

What was the topic about again?

Izzo wrote:

I'll decide what is my concern ...this is a forum after all.

...you're just pissed cuz I argued with your woman.


edit>>...and my opinions are about as worthless as yours and hers are.

No, Izzo, I'm not pissed at all. I just think it's funny that you and your kind will pick and choose what rights are "ok" for others, and then call the rest of the world hypocrites for doing the same. Feel free to express your opinion all you want, a little consistency would improve your credibility though.

downhill wrote:What was the topic about again?

Does it really matter? They all end the same way, and always will.

Izzo wrote:
if you would have read the thread thoroughly you'd realize I don't give a rats ass either. I was bored and argued the side of the Y.

Ah, I see, brushing up on your trolling. Cool.

Ok guys...time to walk away from it for a bit.

Scott wrote:No, Izzo, I'm not pissed at all. I just think it's funny that you and your kind will pick and choose what rights are "ok" for others, and then call the rest of the world hypocrites for doing the same. Feel free to express your opinion all you want, a little consistency would improve your credibility though.

My kind?... lmao.. what kind am I?

Credibility? ...you're a riot dude. I don't think we're even on the same page ....and you're the first person to ever claim I haven't been. What have I waivered on?... examples please. Need at least 10.

downhill wrote:Ok guys...time to walk away from it for a bit.

He's attacking me...just because I cared to reply to a topic and everyone here has been guilty of trolling at one time or another. He needs to have a drink and calm down or something.

There is no credible debate that can be brought that breastmilk is not superior....that is, if you give credence to conventional modern science and medicine.

Modern medical science is almost an oxymoron. In some areas the advances have been near miraculous and in others they are still barbaric in nature. Modern medicine is a "new" science, it's not that old really, about a hundred years or so.

The mother's body does not adjust the levels of protein & vitamins in breast milk according to what the baby needs. The baby is not informing the mother of it's deficiencies and surplusses. Once the cord is cut, the monitoring of the baby's needs by mother's body stops. The mother herself can perceive deficiences in the child and eat to alter her milk, but that's about it. How the baby is fed in no way affects intelligence but it can affect health. Intelligence is not monitored by chemicals, it is more monitored by function.

TonyT wrote:Modern medical science is almost an oxymoron. In some areas the advances have been near miraculous and in others they are still barbaric in nature. Modern medicine is a "new" science, it's not that old really, about a hundred years or so.

The mother's body does not adjust the levels of protein & vitamins in breast milk according to what the baby needs. The baby is not informing the mother of it's deficiencies and surplusses. Once the cord is cut, the monitoring of the baby's needs by mother's body stops. The mother herself can perceive deficiences in the child and eat to alter her milk, but that's about it. How the baby is fed in no way affects intelligence but it can affect health. Intelligence is not monitored by chemicals, it is more monitored by function.

Unfortunatly, The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Dietetic Association, and the World Health Association....and me... disagree with you. I can personally attest that the baby's nursing habits DO affect the woman's production of milk. The more the baby nurses, the more milk you have. I don't know how the mother's body knows to step up production of certain componets, but I know it does. ( I would guess it also has something to due with frequency of nursing and time of day, strength and length of the suckling) Maybe the recent studies are all a bunch of lies, but on average a group of exclusively breast fed children have IQ's 5-10 points higher than those exclusively formula fed.

*edit* already covered by emilyb

Brent wrote:we might as well make all public pools nudie pools now, everyone drop your drawers and take off those tops, makes it equal for everyone, now women can breast feed, people can masturbate, we can make huge orgies out of the whole thing, hell, lifeguards can join in to!

When you go swimming you show your man boobs why can't women show theirs?

emilyb wrote:I don't think these women are doing the backstroke with baby attached. .

Now that was funny. lol

*cho* wrote:When you go swimming you show your man boobs why can't women show theirs?

exactly, let's make all public pools clothes optional

I'm neutral to this topic but I will say this.

Why the hell would you take an infant to a public pool in the first place?? Think of how many of those 13 year old pimply faced kids took a leak in the pool or worse because they didn't want to get out and go to the "other room". I mean C'mon think of the germs and bacteria and the infant that's being exposed to it all!

Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote:I'm neutral to this topic but I will say this.

Why the hell would you take an infant to a public pool in the first place?? Think of how many of those 13 year old pimply faced kids took a leak in the pool or worse because they didn't want to get out and go to the "other room". I mean C'mon think of the germs and bacteria and the infant that's being exposed to it all!

... in Ann Arbor ...specifically to breast feed.

Izzo wrote:... in Ann Arbor ...specifically to breast feed.

Being neutral here remember....

Any public pool for gawd sakes!

Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote:http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/germs.html

waits for chlorine response

Izzo wrote:waits for chlorine response

lol

Dude I've had sex at hotel pools and believe you me nothing could kill my swimmers.

TonyT wrote: Intelligence is not monitored by chemicals, it is more monitored by function.

Are you saying that nutrition has no bearing on intelligence?

Scott wrote:It always amazes me how many people think that others should always be considerate, yet they have no trouble insulting others beliefs or disturbing others.

WTF do you people really care anyway? You don't have to look, pay attention to your own children and quit worrying so damn much about what others are doing.

The same people that say "live and let live" are always the same that bitch when others try to live as they want.

It has to do with older fashioned values..something that's disappearing these days. One used to be taught not to make a spectacle of oneself in public, not to do things that draw attention (Look at me, like people yacking on cell phones in the face of others), not to make an impact on the rest of the public. When you merge into public, you ease into the crowd, don't make them all work to get around you. Minimum impact on the public, all that stuff.

There's a balance of being considerate of others....but in society, there's an unspoken rule of "if the greater percentage is uncomfortable at someone's action"....well...there's a balance there.

It's not a matter of "You don't have to look"...it's a swimming pool for crying out loud, you HAVE to look and pay attention at what's in front of you/surrounding you so you don't swim into them as you're doing laps or whatever it is people do (normally) in swimming pools.

I don't think anyone here finds the act offensive or insulting, it's just people with more traditional values will find it odd to do in public. And in a spot where it's "in your face" for a constant period...most people would find it uncomfortable. If a handful of mothers were in a crowded public pool and whipped out the floats with a bunch of seal pups hanging off suckling for 15 minutes...I bet you'd find of the swimmers get uneasy about it and decide to leave the pool. It's also a bit different in a public swimming pool than say..the local town park on a bench somewhere. Outside in public...it's not as "in your face". In a public swimming pool..it's in your face. Tight proximity, close quarters.

I don't find taking a piss against a tree or stone wall offensive, or even pinching a loaf against a rock or tree. I don't stare at guys doing so in the bathroom or if I were hiking with friends or whatever...but in public places, it's generally not done. More drastic, yes. But ultimately similar in concept.

And of course we have different cultures. Sure it's probably more common in other countries. Some culters walk around mostly naked, guys wearing woven erect penis covers in Africa. But we're taking about the States here.

Hell_Yes wrote:Are you saying that nutrition has no bearing on intelligence?

yes & no.
Intelligence precedes health & nutrition.
Intelligence, by definition is an ability, an ability to take in knowledge and apply it, ability to duplicate what one perceives and then use those perceptions to do something.

Yes, chemicals can prevent duplication, can alter the ability to duplicate. Too much salt or sugar, in massive quantities, as an example, can alter perception, and thus there is an apparancy of reduced intelligence. Same with drugs, in varying quantities.

It's the chicken-egg dillema again though. Was the intake of the chemicals the result of previous low intelligence or the result of other factors? And also, intelligence can return upward when the chemicals leave the body IF there is no physical damage to perceptors (eyes, ears, touch, etc).

But...the individual's intelligence is more greatly effected by experience, by education, by training and by the influence of others, good & bad.

And also, there has been no valid scientific proof that infant intelligence in humans has anything to do with cells & nutrition, meaning that intelligence is not determined by dna or genetic makeup. Rats & rabbits cannot be accurately compared to humans, unless of course the humans want to breast feed their infants at a public swimming pool!

So then the answer is yes, nutrition does have an effect on intelligence.

Hell_Yes wrote:So then the answer is yes, nutrition does have an effect on intelligence.

I've rethought it, thanks to your replies, and yes, it does have an effect, but very small effect in comparison to such things as mom & dad's abberations that they dramatize around their children, the child's inherent abilities that it already has, education, experience and above all the child's impulse toward survival & pleasure, as evidenced by it's ability to stand up for what it believes no matter the influence by others.