The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Achewood => Achewood => Topic started by: misterqueue on December 06, 2005, 11:19:52 am
-
Amusement galore. Ray is the kind of guy who needs an entire getup/scene to drink a straight-up glass of milk.
Also double points for the Gulf of Tonkin.
-
oh, oh, oh god.
I almost made a joke about onstad being broken the other day.
I am so sorry.
I am so sorry, how could I say that.
This is like the song my mother sang to me as a baby-- it reassures me deep in my soul that everything is OK.
Also, I laughed. Like a child with... a suitably nostalgic image.
Yes. Yes.
-
This was, indeed, genius. It should go in the dictionary under "genius."
-
It starts with costumes.
-
Would Ray know what/where the Gulf of Tonkin is? Seriously.
-
Would Ray know what/where the Gulf of Tonkin is? Seriously.
It's probably one of the only phrases he knows is vaguely about the Vietnam war, not because he knows all the history and such but because "Vietnam was a bad scene dogg, Gulf of Tonkin and all that." And then he'd look off in the distant and just assume that people would just know he is very deep and intelligent.
-
That is so right though, that is the exact thing to wear when straight up drinking a tall glass of a milk at a point in time that doesn't involve wearing slippers.
-
Ray's fridge is really organized. And he has two turkeys. What happened to the days when all he had in his room were two dirty socks and some sour cream?
Only is Ray's mind is it a great leap of logic from "pour it into a glass" to "drink it"
-
I'm quite sure Ray pays a fridge consultant. He'd never think to do any of that himself.
What I love about it is the rolled-up cigarettes in the shirtsleeve. Proper!
-
If you're tryin' to be funny, maybe use a little less Vietnam. Old stand-up trick.
-
Ray brings the sass and puts that podgy bear in his place.
Yes, yes, a third time yes!
-
Milk drinking has been taken for granted for far too long. At last Ray came along to show us how to do it with style
-
But it's so true, who just drinks a glass of milk? With no cookie, no cake, no chocolate syrup you can't just straight up drink a glass of milk! That's like back in the day stuff.
Now I know what I'm going to be next Halloween...milk included.
In the third panel did anyone else think that there were stink lines coming from the milk? I know now that it's just extra stuff in the fridge but at first it totally looked like stink lines to me. I was a bit worried for Ray.
-
This was, indeed, genius. It should go in the dictionary under "genius."
Carolus Linnaeus would classify it as genius. (Obvious taxonomy-related pun averted).
Michael Flatley would make a disturbing and inappropriate Tony. The Rumble would turn into a stepdance-off, and the "Play It Cool" song would no doubt translate poorly into raucous, arm-in-arm tapping.
-
Cats oughtn't to drink milk in quantity. Cats generally cannot tolerate lactose (they have NO patience for it) and too much of it will be bad news.
I think Ray knows this and this is why he elected to dress up all tough. He's showing that he's strong enough to drink milk.
-
If you're tryin' to be funny, maybe use a little less Vietnam. Old stand-up trick.
I'm sittin' on the damn stoop! You were the one who turned it into a war and a musical!
-
Cats oughtn't to drink milk in quantity. Cats generally cannot tolerate lactose (they have NO patience for it) and too much of it will be bad news.
Yeah, this pretty much blew my mind when I learned of it when I was eighteen or so. Up until then I lived under the assumption cats were down with milk, a life built on a lie. It was my Santa Claus Isn't Real moment.
-
Well, the weird thing about milk is that most humans (depending on whose numbers you believe) don't handle it really well either. Milk is like the ultimate marketing success: a substance that isn't all that beneficial past infancy that has become a staple in most homes.
Of course, it does make many excellent sauces. Mmm. And cheese. Milk and eggs are like the awesomest raw ingredients ever. And flour. As a beverage, I'll pass.
-
I'm so confused about milk. I Don't really get it! Is it healthy? "They" say it gives me calcium but my sister (who just happens to be a vegan) tells me it strips my bones of calcium. I don't really drink it that often but I still wanna know what's up? And google brings up both sides. Too bad so sad. Does it bother anyone that we've all been drinking another animals boob juice?
-
If I can eat an animal's dead flesh I don't see the problem with milk.
It's a great ingredient and tastes really good with cookies. The stripping bones of calcium thing can't be right or I am sure it couldn't be marketed to children and babies - and the Federal WIC program would be in some shit, wouldn't it...
-
"They" say it gives me calcium but my sister (who just happens to be a vegan) tells me it strips my bones of calcium.
Okay let's test this. I've been drinking milk pretty regularly all my life. Take my arm and your sister's arm, put them in a vicegrip, and tie a rope to our wrists, from which would hang weights. Slowly add more and more weight until one of our arms breaks. Then stop the test. I hypothesize my arm will be intact, if only quite sore.
-
Half the Vegans I know couldn't curl a Q-tip without some crackling noises.
Remember how Healthy and Vigourous Dennis Kucinich always looked? Vegan.
-
If milk does strip calcium from one's bones then that is one hell of a conspiracy right there.
I figure if milk actually does contain a greater concentration of calcium than your blood stream then it will increase the calcium concentration in your blood overall (assuming that the majority of fluid from the milk and all the calcium is taken up into the blood stream which is not the case I'm fairly sure) and therefore make it less favourable for further calcium to disolve (I'm guessing that this the calcium disolving into blood is how the stripping proceeds), so unless They are putting a calcium removing enzyme in the milk (which They told us gives us calcium in the first place) at best it's not doing anything, but there again I'm assuming that there's calcium in there to begin with. That would be an awesome conspiracy though.
[This section deleted because I realised it was complete lies. They got me me]
-
Man, some people really hate milk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk#Criticism). I'm gonna go drink a glass of milk and then simultaneously get acne, prostate AND ovarian cancer, diabetes, diarrhoea, and a heart attack. See ya.
-
Holy loaded lactose batman! That wiki page for milk is scary it makes me wonder why am I not dead yet. I found some more Milk Haters (http://www.notmilk.com/) though and this stuff is funny. I'm going to make it a point to drink milk today.
-
My vegan friend tells me that people of European descent can only tolerate milk because of a genetic defect (I call it natural selection--I love chocolate milk! Thanks Darwin!), and that's why lactose intolerance seems to run along lines of nationality. Who knows?
My sister says she is lactose intolerant. She says she has a problem with all cheese too. But don't certain types of cheese, like cheddar, have very little or no lactose?
-
I learned something (http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/lactoseintolerance/#balanced)!
I thought that the cheesemaking process itself completely broke down lactose, but apparently it doesn't - while cheese contains less lactose per serving, it's still there.
e d u c a t i o n
-
My vegan friend tells me that people of European descent can only tolerate milk because of a genetic defect (I call it natural selection--I love chocolate milk! Thanks Darwin!), and that's why lactose intolerance seems to run along lines of nationality. Who knows?
My sister says she is lactose intolerant. She says she has a problem with all cheese too. But don't certain types of cheese, like cheddar, have very little or no lactose?
A genetic defect? That's a brilliant display of bias in describing a morally neutral mutation. If she is of european descent, she's 'defective' as well...
use of language like that turns me off to any further argument.
-
Milk gives me heartburn something fierce. I don't drink it. I tried that milk-for-the-lactose-intolerant, same thing. Which bummed me out real bad when I was working out reguarly as I used milk to mix my whey protein supplements.
I realize that makes me sound like a boob, but I swear I was never THAT into it.
-
I realize that makes me sound like a boob, but I swear I was never THAT into it.
Suuuuure, buddy. So what does your support group think of your cape?
-
My vegan friend tells me that people of European descent can only tolerate milk because of a genetic defect (I call it natural selection--I love chocolate milk! Thanks Darwin!), and that's why lactose intolerance seems to run along lines of nationality. Who knows?
My sister says she is lactose intolerant. She says she has a problem with all cheese too. But don't certain types of cheese, like cheddar, have very little or no lactose?
A genetic defect? That's a brilliant display of bias in describing a morally neutral mutation. If she is of european descent, she's 'defective' as well...
use of language like that turns me off to any further argument.
Defect is strong, but maybe it's a recessive trait and one not found in many other countries.. is it possible that her meaning is the same but nomenclature is merely lacking? I'm just saying...
-
I have trouble characterizing a genetic difference that allows one to do something additional as a "defect". That's kind of like calling the opposible thumb a "defect".
Whatever your position on eating meat or drinking milk, I can do something that a most people in the world can't -- digest lactose. How is it that I'm the defective one?
-
I have trouble characterizing a genetic difference that allows one to do something additional as a "defect". That's kind of like calling the opposible thumb a "defect".
Whatever your position on eating meat or drinking milk, I can do something that a most people in the world can't -- digest lactose. How is it that I'm the defective one?
To be a wonk about it:
The question is whether lactose digestion arises from the creation of a new ability (what we call a "gain-of-function mutation") or the disabling of a previous ability (what's called a "loss-of-function mutation"). I don't actually know what's going on there, but you could posit a system in which what the mutation actually does is to disable the pathway that inhibits lactose digestion after infancy; in that case, you would probably call it a loss-of-function mutation, since you're "losing" the lactose-digestion-inhibition "function." However, given that lactose digestion is not apparently maladaptive or disruptive to reproduction, calling it a "defect" is at best misguided.
(I hasten to add that, in scientific terms, causing any mutation a "defect" is generally considered fallacious; more and more "disease" mutations are turning out to have advantageous functions when heterozygous, for example, or otherwise be around for a reason other than making our lives hell. Really heinous, embryonically-fatal-in-heterozygosity stuff, or stuff directly related to DNA damage, can still get called a "defect" with some justice, but most mutations can't be. Also, as a scientist*, I have to just say that technically all mutations are morally neutral. Until we track down that elusive "evil gene," at least.)
* "I'm a SCIENTIST -- I don't believe in anything!!"
-
the way I understand the milk thing, animal fat somehow screws with calcium... I think in the way it's digested? the calcium which is actually -in- milk makes up for part of the loss, but not all.
Anyway, it is a conspiracy. The whole "food pyramid" thing is funded by the dairy industry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_pyramid#Criticism.
-
EDIT: Damnit, posted to the wrong thread, post deleted and replaced with this slightly more relevant post:
Even if lactose is stopping calcium from being absorbed thats hardly the same as it being 'stripped from our bones' (a phrase I'm favouring for it's overly dramatic edge). Or did you mean the way animal fat is digested that messes with calcium in bone?
-
V-Adore, do you realize what this "calcium-stripping" could mean to science? It could mean actual advances, in the field of science.
-
V-Adore, do you realize what this "calcium-stripping" could mean to science? It could mean actual advances, in the field of science.
Calcium-stripping! Brilliant! You see... all my life, I've been hated by skeletons...
-
Yeah I agree about the whole defect thing. As I said, I consider it to be a plus, becuase, you know chocolate milk! And cheese! I left it as "genetic defect" because I think it's funny.
He's an ethical vegan, and so I guess his language reflects that. He wants people to stop drinking milk. When he's drunk, he gives me vegan literature (which usually consists of recipes and only a little propaganda).
-
My sister says she is lactose intolerant. She says she has a problem with all cheese too. But don't certain types of cheese, like cheddar, have very little or no lactose?
Cheese was actually how I found out I was lactose intolerant in eighth grade. I was having my double grilled cheese sandwich (cheddar and that one white cheese.. jack something or other?) as usual -- I was a grilled cheese fiend; I used to rate different ones -- I began feeling ill afterwards. I thought it was just a bug, but I attempted eating one again and the same thing happened. even chocolate gave me problems for awhile that year, so I stopped with milk chocolate *and* cheese. milk and ice cream I never really paid any mind too often; sometimes milk in cereal but it wasn't a big deal to remove it.
Anyway, I'd say definitely no on the cheddar.
Swiss I think is the one with a lack of lactose. I can eat that one just fine now. also, I'm cool with parmesian/romano (not very heavy, I guess) and ricotta in certain pastas to a tiny degree (too much and my head feels a bit clogged).
So.. yeah.... I found ways around most cheese. with pizza, I just scrape it off. most people find this strange.
-
My vegan friend tells me that people of European descent can only tolerate milk because of a genetic defect (I call it natural selection--I love chocolate milk! Thanks Darwin!), and that's why lactose intolerance seems to run along lines of nationality. Who knows?
Ok, as a vegetarian who is somewhat sympathetic to veganism my bullshit meter is going off the charts. What's the european gene set? As far as I know, there is none. Given that European climates differ greatly from each other, what would be the unifying environmental factor? Long term exposure to cows? Almost surely, any tolerance that correlates to a whole continent has more to do with the effects of culture (in utero exposure to cow's milk, or other early exposure, etc.).
People used to think that sickle-cell anemia was genetically linked to African ancestry. They were right insofar as it is linked to the areas in Africa (and other continents) that have been plagued by malaria. I don't see see a similar enviornmental factor that would influence the whole of Europe.
-
Also, as a scientist*, I have to just say that technically all mutations are morally neutral. Until we track down that elusive "evil gene," at least.)
Hitler had it. Walt Disney had it. And Jough has it.
I'm mildly lactose intolerant. I can't have a milk shake without waking up in the middle of the night with terrible gas pains. But yogurt helps.
-
BOOZE UP AND RIOT!!!!
http://store.slavelabor.com/MC4Sinfo.shtml
sometimes i think i might be lactose intolerant,
other times i figure it's just my body's natural reaction
to bovine growth hormones.
-
I have trouble characterizing a genetic difference that allows one to do something additional as a "defect". That's kind of like calling the opposible thumb a "defect".
Whatever your position on eating meat or drinking milk, I can do something that a most people in the world can't -- digest lactose. How is it that I'm the defective one?
To be a wonk about it:
The question is whether lactose digestion arises from the creation of a new ability (what we call a "gain-of-function mutation") or the disabling of a previous ability (what's called a "loss-of-function mutation"). I don't actually know what's going on there, but you could posit a system in which what the mutation actually does is to disable the pathway that inhibits lactose digestion after infancy; in that case, you would probably call it a loss-of-function mutation, since you're "losing" the lactose-digestion-inhibition "function." However, given that lactose digestion is not apparently maladaptive or disruptive to reproduction, calling it a "defect" is at best misguided.
(I hasten to add that, in scientific terms, causing any mutation a "defect" is generally considered fallacious; more and more "disease" mutations are turning out to have advantageous functions when heterozygous, for example, or otherwise be around for a reason other than making our lives hell. Really heinous, embryonically-fatal-in-heterozygosity stuff, or stuff directly related to DNA damage, can still get called a "defect" with some justice, but most mutations can't be. Also, as a scientist*, I have to just say that technically all mutations are morally neutral. Until we track down that elusive "evil gene," at least.)
* "I'm a SCIENTIST -- I don't believe in anything!!"
I remember reading somewhere that the evolutionary benefit of lactose intolerance was a natural impetus toward weaning; in which case, a loss-of-function mutation as such could be seen as a defect from a genetic fitness perspective. Someone who is weaning far beyond the point where they absolutely have to is, at least to some degree, going to be less fertile for impregnation; thus, being part of a race of milk-lovers means you will breed less often.
-
Also, as a scientist*, I have to just say that technically all mutations are morally neutral. Until we track down that elusive "evil gene," at least.)
Hitler had it. Walt Disney had it. And Jough has it.
Jough's not evil. He just hates everyone. There's a difference.
-
I have trouble characterizing a genetic difference that allows one to do something additional as a "defect". That's kind of like calling the opposible thumb a "defect".
Whatever your position on eating meat or drinking milk, I can do something that a most people in the world can't -- digest lactose. How is it that I'm the defective one?
To be a wonk about it:
The question is whether lactose digestion arises from the creation of a new ability (what we call a "gain-of-function mutation") or the disabling of a previous ability (what's called a "loss-of-function mutation"). I don't actually know what's going on there, but you could posit a system in which what the mutation actually does is to disable the pathway that inhibits lactose digestion after infancy; in that case, you would probably call it a loss-of-function mutation, since you're "losing" the lactose-digestion-inhibition "function." However, given that lactose digestion is not apparently maladaptive or disruptive to reproduction, calling it a "defect" is at best misguided.
(I hasten to add that, in scientific terms, causing any mutation a "defect" is generally considered fallacious; more and more "disease" mutations are turning out to have advantageous functions when heterozygous, for example, or otherwise be around for a reason other than making our lives hell. Really heinous, embryonically-fatal-in-heterozygosity stuff, or stuff directly related to DNA damage, can still get called a "defect" with some justice, but most mutations can't be. Also, as a scientist*, I have to just say that technically all mutations are morally neutral. Until we track down that elusive "evil gene," at least.)
* "I'm a SCIENTIST -- I don't believe in anything!!"
I remember reading somewhere that the evolutionary benefit of lactose intolerance was a natural impetus toward weaning; in which case, a loss-of-function mutation as such could be seen as a defect from a genetic fitness perspective. Someone who is weaning far beyond the point where they absolutely have to is, at least to some degree, going to be less fertile for impregnation; thus, being part of a race of milk-lovers means you will breed less often.
This is a fair point, but you could argue just as strongly that later weaning results in a higher overall nutrititive intake for the child during early childhood, better development during that period, and thus greater viability. If the babies you have are more likely to live, that can cancel out the effect of having fewer babies, since children only "matter" for natural-selection purposes if they get to breeding age and breed themselves. I can't say which effect is stronger, but if we posit the suggested model (that somehow this mutation has spread throughout Europe and does not generally appear to be being outcompeted by Europeans without it) then it doesn't appear to be having measurable deleterious effects on the fitness of the carriers.
-
I have trouble characterizing a genetic difference that allows one to do something additional as a "defect". That's kind of like calling the opposible thumb a "defect".
Whatever your position on eating meat or drinking milk, I can do something that a most people in the world can't -- digest lactose. How is it that I'm the defective one?
To be a wonk about it:
The question is whether lactose digestion arises from the creation of a new ability (what we call a "gain-of-function mutation") or the disabling of a previous ability (what's called a "loss-of-function mutation"). I don't actually know what's going on there, but you could posit a system in which what the mutation actually does is to disable the pathway that inhibits lactose digestion after infancy; in that case, you would probably call it a loss-of-function mutation, since you're "losing" the lactose-digestion-inhibition "function." However, given that lactose digestion is not apparently maladaptive or disruptive to reproduction, calling it a "defect" is at best misguided.
(I hasten to add that, in scientific terms, causing any mutation a "defect" is generally considered fallacious; more and more "disease" mutations are turning out to have advantageous functions when heterozygous, for example, or otherwise be around for a reason other than making our lives hell. Really heinous, embryonically-fatal-in-heterozygosity stuff, or stuff directly related to DNA damage, can still get called a "defect" with some justice, but most mutations can't be. Also, as a scientist*, I have to just say that technically all mutations are morally neutral. Until we track down that elusive "evil gene," at least.)
* "I'm a SCIENTIST -- I don't believe in anything!!"
I remember reading somewhere that the evolutionary benefit of lactose intolerance was a natural impetus toward weaning; in which case, a loss-of-function mutation as such could be seen as a defect from a genetic fitness perspective. Someone who is weaning far beyond the point where they absolutely have to is, at least to some degree, going to be less fertile for impregnation; thus, being part of a race of milk-lovers means you will breed less often.
This is a fair point, but you could argue just as strongly that later weaning results in a higher overall nutrititive intake for the child during early childhood, better development during that period, and thus greater viability. If the babies you have are more likely to live, that can cancel out the effect of having fewer babies, since children only "matter" for natural-selection purposes if they get to breeding age and breed themselves. I can't say which effect is stronger, but if we posit the suggested model (that somehow this mutation has spread throughout Europe and does not generally appear to be being outcompeted by Europeans without it) then it doesn't appear to be having measurable deleterious effects on the fitness of the carriers.
I agree with you; I was just challenging myself by trying to find a circumstance under which the term 'defect' could be apropos. For what it's worth, however, talk of genetic fitness in humanity IMO is bullshit after we started doing agriculture and actually had a net drop in our welfare, health and genetic fitness which didn't regain its former level until after the Industrial Revolution. We just starting doing any old thing with the trophic web and hoped the good lord would provide.
I miss hunting and gathering. That's why I hunt hookers and gather cocaine.
-
Ever notice how food allergies tend to only arise in areas where food is plentiful? The number of people who are lactose intolerant and who receive food aid in Africa is almost zero. It's not even an issue.
In the U.S., a ridiculously large number of people seem to be allergic to some food or another, like peanuts, milk, or seafood.
We could probably wipe out the lactose intolerance problem in a generation by just LETTING THOSE WHO HAVE IT DIE. That way they can't pass on the sissy gene to their offspring.
We're all about SCIENCE here.
-
I don't think the peanut allergy is spreading genetically though. The two most common theories are that children are being exposed to peanuts, peanut butter, and peanut oil too young (< 1year) or that we're coddling the kids too damn much and need to let them come into contact with things that aren't sterilized before they do to school. Does anybody else remember than plastic that made the news a few years ago that claimed to have anti-bacterial substances mixed right into it?
-
Ever notice how food allergies tend to only arise in areas where food is plentiful? The number of people who are lactose intolerant and who receive food aid in Africa is almost zero. It's not even an issue.
In the U.S., a ridiculously large number of people seem to be allergic to some food or another, like peanuts, milk, or seafood.
We could probably wipe out the lactose intolerance problem in a generation by just LETTING THOSE WHO HAVE IT DIE. That way they can't pass on the sissy gene to their offspring.
We're all about SCIENCE here.
If you're talking about SCIENCE try getting it straight. Lactose intolerance isn't a food allergy. Lactose intolerance has symptoms such as diarrhoea and stomach upset, which would be indistinguishable from cholera, which most of the developing world still suffers.
As for food allergies, there's a school of thought (and it's not new -- I remember Discover Magazine mentioning it as established in the late eighties) that allergies are the result of an immune system that is expecting parasites and such. Our immune systems are turned to 11 in expectation of the immune-dampening secretions of trichinosis, whipworms, pinworms, tapeworms and the like.
Thus, in the absence of actual infiltrators, we're declaring war on an an abstract and innumerable enemy (pollen, food, etc), the entirety of which we can't possibly destroy. (sound like any presidential administrations you know?)
-
I'm mildly lactose intolerant. I can't have a milk shake without waking up in the middle of the night with terrible gas pains.
Are you sure this isn't the effect of eating massive amounts of fat, rather than lactose?
-
I'm mildly lactose intolerant. I can't have a milk shake without waking up in the middle of the night with terrible gas pains.
Are you sure this isn't the effect of eating massive amounts of fat, rather than lactose?
Pretty sure. Trips to Popeye's never seem to have this effect.
-
All I know is, I can't eat 15 bacon double cheeseburgers, 25 twinkies and wash it down with buttermilk without having another coronary.
-
I'm mildly lactose intolerant. I can't have a milk shake without waking up in the middle of the night with terrible gas pains.
Are you sure this isn't the effect of eating massive amounts of fat, rather than lactose?
Oh, hell no, it ain't. I get the same symptoms when I consume milk products, regardless of the amount of fat involved. In fact, the opposite is true...I can eat or drink things made with cream, since cream contains no (or very little?) lactose.