Thread: 5 second rule

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Oh, I see. So the way this game works is, you declare something...anything...to promote your stance on an issue, and the burden is on me to look it up and verify it for you. I see. I've been in plenty of discussions with plenty of intelligent people, and the overwhelming majority of them had absolutely no problem with presenting evidence to back their claims. If you expect me to look up every single thing you say is true, just because you say it's true, we're pretty much done here.

Why would I need you to verify something I find as obvious? I don't need verification of something that's obvious to me.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I can tell you that Unicorns exist, that it's common knowledge and that your disagreeing showcases your ignorance. I could tell you that the truth has been uncovered, and that everyone knows it but you. Then, when there doesn't seem to be any documentation about it, I can talk about how you're unable to help yourself - effectively getting you to jump through hoops to look up something that I made up right there on the spot.

It's called backing your claims, and even the most novice conversationalists understand the concept. If it's too much to ask, I'm not about to entertain a debate with you.

Ok, so you say there's no articles over viruses being world wide? Have you ever tried to type "cases of the common cold around the world," or anything like that in a search engine? I'm pretty sure you'll find something. I'll give you a few examples.

I typed "is the common cold all over the world." I found this.

The common cold is the most frequently occurring illness in the world, and it is a leading cause of doctor visits and missed days from school and work.

I typed "AIDS around the world." I found this.

HIV and AIDS have spread to become a global problem threatening every country in the world.

I typed "is E.coli worldwide." I found this.

Researchers have actively been working to develop safe, effective vaccines to lower the worldwide incidence of E. coli infection

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Wow. "New species?" "Spread of pathogens based on interactions with the infected?" "Not likely to happen in small populations?" All of this is indicative of the idea that there may be plenty of viruses that aren't global yet. Plenty are localized among the flora and wildlife that harbor them.

At least, this is what I gather. If I'm wrong, provide me with information to the contrary. If you refuse to do that then this is simply a waste of time...however enlightening.

He said "most" viruses and bacteria are international, he didn't say "all." I really don't see where you're trying to take this. The word "most" doesn't necessarily have to include the viruses in the ocean that's yet to be discovered. By the way, what's a virus we've gotten from plants so far?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Ah, yes. Because we all know how hard all that information in high school biology books is to find on the internet. Interesting that you "don't have the sources" when it's something so academically important as to be put in a high school biology book.

There's another word you might have seen in a high school biology book. "Antibody." Amazingly enough, there's information about it on the internet.



Surprisingly enough, this goes against your claim that:

By your statement about antibodies, do you think antibodies fight every foreign form of bacteria and viruses?

I mean, if that were true, we would be immune to everything in the world.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

In that context, foreign means not from your body, not completely unknown to the immune system, which is what I meant. I'm surprised you need help with word meanings now.

Don't be. When people refuse to substantiate their claims, and pretty much expect the conversations to go "it's true because I say it's true. Deal with it" then is it so hard to understand that I may not get where they're coming from all the time?

Rhetorical question.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Why would I need you to verify something I find as obvious? I don't need verification of something that's obvious to me.

Of course you don't. I said we're done here. He wants to spout off made-up statistics, and you want to do 80% of his speaking for him, while neither of you want to offer anything to back anything you're saying. I neither know enough or care enough about the subject to continue with that sort of childish debate. I don't know how you expect anyone to take you seriously if you refuse to substantiate anything you claim. If you don't care whether or not they do, why bother talking in the first place?

Again, rhetorical question.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Ok, so you say there's no articles over viruses being world wide?

Wow. How many times is that now that you've touted me as saying something I didn't say?

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

He said "most" viruses and bacteria are international, he didn't say "all." I really don't see where you're trying to take this.

There it is again.

By the way, what's a virus we've gotten from plants so far?

Don't tell me you want me to expand on something now, after you took the "screw you, you can find your own information" stance, a second ago (though whether or not I actually can is beside the point. Heh). Classic.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

By your statement about antibodies, do you think antibodies fight every foreign form of bacteria and viruses?

No I don't. I suspect that some weaker pathogens can be fought off - with what sort of effectiveness, I have no idea, but that's neither here nor there. I think it's safe to say that we're not going to get anywhere, here. Just the fact that we've gotten where we are, simply from my asking drewman to back an assertion with something verifiable, is pretty pathetic, in it's own right. So I'm done.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Don't be. When people refuse to substantiate their claims, and pretty much expect the conversations to go "it's true because I say it's true. Deal with it" then is it so hard to understand that I may not get where they're coming from all the time?

Rhetorical question.



Of course you don't. I said we're done here. He wants to spout off made-up statistics, and you want to do 80% of his speaking for him, while neither of you want to offer anything to back anything you're saying. I neither know enough or care enough about the subject to continue with that sort of childish debate. I don't know how you expect anyone to take you seriously if you refuse to substantiate anything you claim. If you don't care whether or not they do, why bother talking in the first place?

Again, rhetorical question.



Wow. How many times is that now that you've touted me as saying something I didn't say?



There it is again.



Don't tell me you want me to expand on something now, after you took the "screw you, you can find your own information" stance, a second ago (though whether or not I actually can is beside the point. Heh). Classic.



No I don't. I suspect that some weaker pathogens can be fought off - with what sort of effectiveness, I have no idea, but that's neither here nor there. I think it's safe to say that we're not going to get anywhere, here. Just the fact that we've gotten where we are, simply from my asking drewman to back an assertion with something verifiable, is pretty pathetic, in it's own right. So I'm done.

I provided links for you. It wasn't that hard to type what I did.

Originally Posted by stonedape

How many people live by the 5 second rule?

If you don't know the five second rule is eating food off the ground if it hasn't been there more than 5 seconds. Personally I don't worry much about the length of time, I just look at the food and make a judgement as to weather or not it would still taste good.

It seems to me like this country is turning into a bunch of germaphobes.

Yeah, you're totally right. If anything, it probably helps you in the long run since it builds up your immune system. It's funny though, because all of my friends who I grew up with since a young age who had paranoid, germaphobe parents are the people who get sick way more often than anyone I know.

nitsuJ just sounds like a bitch scared of poopy water.

LMAO

Originally Posted by CoLd BlooDed

nitsuJ just sounds like a bitch scared of poopy water.

LMAO

Oh, right, I'm a scared bitch because I don't like drinking fecal matter.

LOLOLOL

You're almost funny.

Go eat a fat wad of Cholera.

I really just wanted to provoke a reaction. Hahahahaha - it's awesome when people give serious responses to a not-so-serious statement, isn't it?

Honestly, my intention was to humiliate you more than Oneironaut did.

Originally Posted by CoLd BlooDed

I really just wanted to provoke a reaction. Hahahahaha - it's awesome when people give serious responses to a not-so-serious statement, isn't it?

Honestly, my intention was to humiliate you more than Oneironaut did.

I don't see how I was humiliated by either of you really. Neither of you proved any points. I'd think it's more humiliating at failing at your attempt to humiliate. Valiant effort, kiddo. Better luck next post!

What makes you think my reply to you was so serious? Looks like I must have humiliated you instead.

i eat the shit that falls out of my sandwich onto the sidewalk. no use wasting pieces of chicken teriyaki over a few grains of god knows what.

i probably wouldn't eat off the floor of a macy's, unless i dropped something like an m&m...

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

I don't see how I was humiliated by either of you really. Neither of you proved any points. I'd think it's more humiliating at failing at your attempt to humiliate. Valiant effort, kiddo. Better luck next post!

I wasn't trying to prove any points, you duster. On top of that, you can't determine whether or not I failed at humiliating you - it's not your decision.

What makes you think my reply to you was so serious? Looks like I must have humiliated you instead.

The 'subtle' tone of being disgruntled and trying to make witty comebacks makes me think you were being serious. Also, the fact that you posted at all instead of just ignoring me. Teehee!

*awaits the next serious post*

Originally Posted by CoLd BlooDed

I wasn't trying to prove any points, you duster. On top of that, you can't determine whether or not I failed at humiliating you - it's not your decision.

Actually it is my decision, I don't feel humiliated, so obviously you did fail.

Originally Posted by CoLd BlooDed

The 'subtle' tone of being disgruntled and trying to make witty comebacks makes me think you were being serious. Also, the fact that you posted at all instead of just ignoring me. Teehee!

*awaits the next serious post*

How am I disgruntled? What proof do you have other than your assumptions? It's a debate, it's not getting my boxers in a twist. If you didn't take my posts so serious, you'd ignore them.

A debate over what?

Originally Posted by nistuJ

I don't feel humiliated, so obviously you did fail.

Assumptions, assumptions. Say a man is screaming at someone for no reason in a public place, everyone is watching. He doesn't feel like an idiot, but everyone that's watching him is thinking 'what a jackass.' My comment may not have humiliated you, but reading your 'argument' (if you can call it that) with Oneironaut still makes you look like a fuckin' jackass, so shut it. Just because you don't think it applies to you doesn't make it any less true - a reflection of what you just said as well as your (cough) debate with O.

Originally Posted by nistuJ

If you didn't take my posts so serious, you'd ignore them.

I started it.





Psst. You suck at debating.

Originally Posted by CoLd BlooDed

A debate over what?



Assumptions, assumptions. Say a man is screaming at someone for no reason in a public place, everyone is watching. He doesn't feel like an idiot, but everyone that's watching him is thinking 'what a jackass.' My comment may not have humiliated you, but reading your 'argument' (if you can call it that) with Oneironaut still makes you look like a fuckin' jackass, so shut it. Just because you don't think it applies to you doesn't make it any less true - a reflection of what you just said as well as your (cough) debate with O.



I started it.





Psst. You suck at debating.

Well I believe I know what applies to me and what doesn't, if I said I wasn't humiliated then I wasn't humiliated. But I guess by your same logic I can say you're a moron, you can't deny that you aren't obviously. It wasn't much of a debate, I offered cold hard facts, he offered cold hard facts. We're both right in our opinions.

If you can't handle the truth perhaps you should deter yourself away from this thread.

How do I suck at debating? Because I supply information that puts other people's statements down? Lol logical. Hurry up and post some other type of humiliating statement.

Originally Posted by The Enterer

It's all about drawing a line, right? I mean how many of you drink out of public toilets to boost your immune system?

you do know toilets are much more germ free than the average kitchen floor. So you'de get a much better immune system boost by licking the floor.

And yea the 5 second rule is really a joke. It basically means if stuff falls on the floor pick it up an eat it.

How many times have you heard of people getting sick from food they picked up off the floor.

Originally Posted by aceofspades

How many times have you heard of people getting sick from food they picked up off the floor.

maybe we don't because they're all deeply fucked in an ICU somewhere!

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

Well I believe I know what applies to me and what doesn't, if I said I wasn't humiliated then I wasn't humiliated. But I guess by your same logic I can say you're a moron, you can't deny that you aren't obviously. It wasn't much of a debate, I offered cold hard facts, he offered cold hard facts. We're both right in our opinions.

If you can't handle the truth perhaps you should deter yourself away from this thread.

How do I suck at debating? Because I supply information that puts other people's statements down? Lol logical. Hurry up and post some other type of humiliating statement.

Why the edit? Make a mistake while having to think out your rebuttal?

Originally Posted by CoLd BlooDed

Why the edit? Make a mistake while having to think out your rebuttal?

I actually corrected a word, why did you edit earlier, have to rethink your rebuttal? Have you offered anything substantial to this thread, or have you just came in here pursuing your e-crush on me?

Came here to pursue my e-crush on you, of course.

And I did contribute something worthwhile, my 'not-giving-a-fuck-of-whether-or-not-I-eat-food-off-the-ground' post way back when. Open and close of my argument - I don't feel very inspired to turn my opinion of not giving a fuck into a debate.

Originally Posted by CoLd BlooDed

And I did contribute something worthwhile, my 'not-giving-a-fuck-of-whether-or-not-I-eat-food-off-the-ground' post way back when. Open and close of my argument - I don't feel very inspired to turn my opinion of not giving a fuck into a debate.

Not giving a fuck is definitely the way to go:

And yes, I eat food after it's been on the floor, but only in my house.

Originally Posted by stonedape

I recently saw a news article that said it should be more like a zero second rule. That got me pretty pissed off because I'm sick of hearing false scientific information in the news. People are already too concerned with things being "safe". Take some risks, Live.

I totally agree. I'm getting pissed off with everything begin so damn safe and healthy and protected. I'm not concerned with dropping stuff on the floor and eating it. I do it all the time. Why not take risks? Safety isn't everything.

I only go by the 5 second rule if the food was on the ground for less than 5 seconds. If it's on the ground longer I have to switch to the 10 second rule.