Profile

  • Matt
  • Member Since Apr 7th, 2006

Are you Matt? If So, Login Here.

Recent Comments:

Is 'The World's Longest Basketball Shot' Legit? {Asylum}

Sep 26th 2009 2:25PM If you pause it on the ball's way down, you can see that the trajectory is taking it to the right of the hoop. The ball curves mid-air, so either there was a strong wind, or it was faked.

Coke CEO attacks soda tax as a Commie tactic {Daily Finance}

Sep 16th 2009 4:03PM John, banning substances that have historical precedence was what happened during Prohibition. They -did- try it, and that didn't work. Banning's not the answer, but taxing it heavily will decrease drinking (as one of many combined efforts to reduce alcoholism and alcohol abuse, drunk driving, and etc).

Coke CEO attacks soda tax as a Commie tactic {Daily Finance}

Sep 16th 2009 3:47PM Unfortunately, Wolf, natural selection has taken a back-seat with modern humans, with the advent of many modern medical practices and aids, so it won't quite weed out people with the worst self-harming behaviors (especially over the course of 80 years, many of these laws will still go back and forth... there are people still alive who were around before Medicare).

Coke CEO attacks soda tax as a Commie tactic {Daily Finance}

Sep 16th 2009 3:35PM Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation... the people didn't get a say about being taxed so heavily. We do, through voting people into Congress. We're a republic, we have representation.

Coke CEO attacks soda tax as a Commie tactic {Daily Finance}

Sep 16th 2009 3:32PM I notice only one, maybe two people have actually said "consuming lots of sugar isn't bad for us."

I'll agree with the dietician that taxing unhealthy foods/drinks is not a viable plan by itself. If it was the only measure, it wouldn't be really as effective... I am sure she (he?) could give us a very good summary of why elimination diets don't work.

However, the point is not to eliminate, but to reduce. No one is naive enough to think that this will eliminate consumption, unless the tax is made to an incredibly high price. What it will do is decrease the consumption slightly (and across 500 million Americans, slightly for every person adds up to a lot) and increase government income.

Additionally, other programs and efforts are still necessary to complement this. No one program is going to solve any of the problems we have... it's a combined effort of many different approaches that will help slowly but surely change things around. Promoting healthy living (exercise, sleeping properly, eating moderately) along with making it harder or less desirable to live unhealthily is very important. As a behavioral researcher, I can tell you that the best way to change behavior is a lot of reinforcement for what you want combined with small, mild punishment for the behaviors you don't. That's a small but integral part of this picture.

So jobs won't be significantly affected... Coke and Pepsi will still be abundant. Those truck drivers will be fine.

Yes, the government should be able to more efficiently manage budgets, which is a much tougher job than I am sure anyone on this chat forum can even begin to appreciate, much less manage. The government's spending problem, however, is largely a separate issue, and should be handled separately. Ignoring legitimate scientific research showing there is a health problem in America isn't the answer.

Many people are saying they don't want the government taxing everything, and it's a "slippery slope". Apart from the writer's comments, I'd like to add that you're essentially complaining about one of the government's answers without proposing any of your own. If you don't like that the government is using taxation to try to help the health problems, then get actively involved in coming up with and proposing alternate solutions. If you don't, then you're not helping, and you should let others who are helping do their jobs. Then again, we're talking about AOL comment forums, so face it, none of us are really making a huge impact anyway. Half the people here are probably doing it just to hear themselves talk, the other half to get out opinions in a way with minimal effort (as opposed to a rally of some kind... it's why I'm posting here, afterall).

To those people using all caps: There's a reason the English language uses capitalization for some words and grammatical structures. Among other things, it's for perceptual comprehension. Writing in all caps is about as bad as using all lower case without punctuation; it makes it physically harder for other people to comprehend what you're saying, and like it or not, your point won't get across as well. Additionally, on the internet, it's generally the mark of people flaming chatrooms and boards and of a lower-than-average grasp of the English language and proper communication skills. So, you're perfectly allowed to type in all caps. Just be prepared to be ignored a lot.

Should Paralyzed Vet Get a Free (Amusement Park) Ride? {Asylum}

Jun 19th 2009 3:22PM He should be respected for his duty, yes. What about an elderly teacher who wants to be with his family? He may have educated hundreds or thousands of young students in his day, which is arguably just as important as someone serving in the armed forces. Being in the military is not the end-all and be-all of patriotism, serving one's country, or being a productive member of society. So he should be honored and respected, but arguably no more so than other people in society who should be honored and respected. I agree with the general manager's statements that there are other individuals who are in the same situation and deserve the same level of respect, and it would be unfair to them.

The ideal situation is that the park has a dual policy, like other parks: a ride-all-day admission price, then an admission price (perhaps free) where you can enter, spend time with your family, then buy tickets to ride individual rides, if so inclined. It's a good secondary option for people who don't plan to ride anything, or would only ride maybe one or two rides. That sort of backup/secondary policy could have helped avoid this situation altogether.

Aspartame does not raise cancer risk {Slashfood}

Apr 7th 2006 11:53AM Many, many things ingested in that much excess will cause cancer. In the field of animal research and nutrition, it's generally been known and accepted that the "sweet'n'low causes cancer" claim was a fallacy just for the fact of dosage.

My main concern with this article is that it gives the implication that research with animals has no bearing on the human condition. While there are obvious differences, the rat physiology is largely comparable and generalizable to humans for such studies for experimental (stimulus control, having a variable you manipulate and another one that changes as a result) research versus correlational research (when A changes, B also happens to change... but that might mean B causes A, A causes B, or C causes both A and B).

Animal research (and not just biopsychological and biological research, but behavioral testing with operant chambers) has taken a huge hit from federal funding, and research with animals is critical both for human benefits but also for animal benefits. The more research I do with animals to find out about how exactly they think, function, perceive the world, locomote, and everything involved means more advances for conservation of species and more general education and awareness, which itself generates more support and funding for more benefitial research and conservation.