ben_1903

woooop!!!!

I shall be in attendance

No idea what you guys are on about with the drummer?

But on a side note - he is a superb drummer, especially on Frames. Immense.

and women who love men who love drugs.

and catalyst.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassssssssssssssssssss

The perfect circle version of imagine = 100x better than the original.

Oh and btw fuel kicks ass

get bopara to fuck. get mark ramprakash back in.

you win. thread over.

bahahahaahhaa ace

despite not being as popular as they were, i think FFAF are great. The third album is really good. Just listened to the new one on spotify - also sounding good.

Hours is probably my favourite album of theirs.

When i saw them in Dundee in Dec 2007 they were excellent, and played a great mix of old and new. Rarities were: this years most open heartbreak, kiss and make up, and the art of american football.

Here is my theory:

If it involves tactics, and each match is different to a good degree, it is a sport.

Golf - is therefore a sport (though i hate it, i admit it is a sport)

Snooker - a sport

Bowls - Juuuust makes it. Though if there were a middle ground between a game and sport, i'd put it there. Its a spame, or a gort.

Cricket - Deffinately. Also involves running and shit

Darts - Not a sport. Doesn't matter if your opponent is on the moon via video link, all you ever try to do is reach zero first by getting treble 20 and then whatever is left. Thats not to say I don't respect darts players for their considerable skill and accuracy. They are good at their pass-time/game.

Correct Dave.

No. Cricket rules.

That's not true at all, half his set is telling jokes, the other half is taking questions and comments from the audience and responding. The one-liners bit do start to get a little tiring but the questions and comments bit is funnier as it's spontaneous and he has to come up with a quick response. Have you seen any of his stand up or just 8 Out Of 10 Cats? And how is he a pompous twat?

I have sen his stand-up (not live, on dvd) It was poopy pants.

He's a pompous twat in that he is both pompous, and a twat.

The job of a comedian is ultimately to tell jokes surely?

No, it is to be funny - not to exclusively tell jokes.

was that Jonny from Take a Worm for a Walk Week playing drums for Idlewild...?

may well be...

Colin from idlewild is chilling with his bird who is expecting another kid.

I like it!

delivered?

yeah thats the one, where did you get that?

My girlfriend is pretty smoking too!

It is relevant to the discussion here though. I've studied evolution too you know...

It's natural for you to be disgusted by "gunts", yes, but not for everybody. Yes you're entitled to an opinion on it like everyone else but sometimes you have to know when to say things and when not to say things and if your motivation for posting this thread was to be controversial and "cool" then you may have succeeded on the first aim but you failed miserably on the second which is a shame because having spoken to you before you seemed like a nice enough guy.

Dude, my motivation for this thread was:

1. I had recently been repulsed by an extremely fat person on the bus, the topic of fatness was on my mind, I thought I'd post about it.

2. I was bored and felt like having a rant and starting a topic.

Not to seem cool. If I wanted to look cool I would have posted a picture of myself with my four popped collars.

If anyone is offended by that - I don't appologise. Finding extreme obeseity pretty minging doesn't make me a nazi.

On your other point - yeah we spoke before and you also seem like a decent bloke....we just don't share the same opinions on this issue - all gravy.

What about the many smokers who live on Government handouts, so technically aren't paying any tax or National Insurance but will still benefit from NHS treatment for preventable diseases?

And is there a system of calculating how much money raised by cigarette taxation and National Insurance payments by smokers goes towards NHS treatments for those suffering smoking related illnesses? is there a level of demarkation? No there isn't. So your argument is basically a lot of shite.

What about fatties who get hand outs?

If smokers pay tax on their fags - sure you can't calculate exactly what goes where; but they are still paying extra tax towards the NHS, which fatties don't.

Smokers are treated like social piriahs, but to be really obese is becoming the norm and increasingly acceptable.

Fat people (that don't have a medical reason to be fat) have just as much choice to be fat as smokers; but smoking is more addicitive than macdonalds!!

And Phil, its not fair to say all my posts have been shite, I think my disagreement on the evoloution topic was well put...

Smokers PAY for their NHS treatment many times over from the tax.

Fatties only pay VAT (as do non-fatties) and basically cost the NHS millions every year.

So the smoking argument doesn't work, I'm not personally a smoker, but they do pay for it. Fatties don't.

a few points.

I think the evolution/genetics debate is a side argument, and I'm not sure that we are on the same wave-length. As an avid Dawkins reader and having studied evolution im fairly certain my argument made sense. Maybe no - lets put that debate to bed.

As for being mean to overweight people - its not nice to be mean to overweight people; true.

But being disgusted by those with gunts is only natural.

I was waiting for someone to try that one. Genetics dictate physical size and proportion and they also dictate how people's bodies deal with things. Metabolism is a genetic thing as well and some people are more predisposed to the threat of obesity than others. Obesity is very much influenced by a persons genetics as well as how they react to external stimulus. Genetics can even dictate someone's appetite depending on the presence or not of certain genes (Leptin in particular being a major one for both appetite and metabolism).

Due to genetics peoples bodies obviously respond differently to exercise and eating some people gain weight very easily whereas others don't and some people develop muscle and tone a lot easier than others. Somebody who doesn't necessarily eat any more than your average person in respect to volume or type of food could easily be much more susceptible to developing a weight problem if their genetic make-up is predisposed as such.

Natural selection can be through linked genes as well. For example it may be that everyone in the human population that doesn't suffer from a Leptin deficiency is more susceptible to a particularly fatal external stimulus.

Not really flawed in my opinion, just common sense genetics.

Yes and no.

You are quite right; genetics is the basis for different people's types of metabolism/energy conversion/development of fat etc etc

But like I said - in your theory only those with a genetic basis for being fat would be selected for.

Not the fatties we are arguing about - those who are fat because they just love burgers.

In addition - I doubt those with a genetic basis for beiong fat would have much of a selective advantage anyway due to the inefficient nature of their digestion - they would store food as fat rather than utilise it properly.

I can just see it now... on www.imaddictedtocake.com, a bunch of fat people on a forum saying how ben is an oily little ned and should be sent to the moon.

Of course their insults would read something like; "Befemn issa anbn oilklky tlkiuytytlke njmdf5ercfd", unless they own special dialling wands to circumvent having sausage fingers.

must spread repuation around sadly...

Not really. Think about population dynamics and evolution. Say for example there is some sort of worldwide event that means that ridiculously fat people are suddenly in possession of the most desireable genetic traits, people's perception of what was and wasn't attractive would change quite quickly in terms of procreation (needs must etc.) Then the gene pool would lean heavily (no pun intended, honest) towards those particular genetic traits and the population may only consist of larger people with shorter lifespans. Stranger things have happened.

I think also if you were to casually ask someone from 150 years ago (where's my flux capacitor?) whether they thought interracial sexual/personal relationships was an attractive prospect they would probably poo poo the idea as ridiculous, whereas now it is commonly (and rightly so) socially acceptable. Who's to say that obesity or the larger form might not have the same fate. Just because it's socially and sexually frowned upon to be obese or fat these days that it might not be a desireable trait 150 years from now? Social attitudes change dramatically over time.

Couldn't give a shit if they were. I might feel a little bit uncomfortable but in a lot of cases i could move if i wanted to. They are as entitled to be doing whatever they like in those circumstances as i am.

I have been accused of not being able to argue, but i'd like to think that i'm not arguing just putting across a different point of view.

I actually quite like the argument here for evolution, brings in an interesting side to the debate

BUT. The argument is flawed at a very basic level:

Natural selection would only select for fatties with a genetic basis for being a fatty, not for those who over indulge in macdonalds and then blame it on slow metabolism. That is to say, they would die like the rest of us.

Given this thread is regarding fatties who make themselves fat and not those with a medical condition, it's irrelevant.

In addition, if we were to have a world famine genetic fatties would probably not be selected for: they are inefficient in terms of energy conversion, they take the energy and send it straight into layers of fat - rather than sending it to be of use in the body.