Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:39 pm

Long-term exposure to lots and lots of calcium is also bad for you. I have no idea to what extent the calcium in calcium carbonate is absorbable by your body, I have no idea what possible consequences of short-term exposure to decent quantities are, and I do know calcium carbonate is packed into pills and whatever as filler explicitly because it does nothing. So I am guessing if you eat "a pill or two's worth" of calcium carbonate every "now and then," absolutely no concern is necessary and it's fundamentally the same as popping antacids. Note that problems with overconsumption of antacids/calcium/whatever can be compounded by dehydration, so, again, make sure you are replacing the fluids your body is determined to get rid of.

Also, chalk today is made out of a bunch of different things, sometimes even out of magnesium compounds, which is the exact opposite of helpful. Some may even be toxic, I have no idea. I would hope not, since chalk is something children tend to have easy access to and children are stupid.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:00 pm

Calcium carbonate is also marble and limestone. Please... Just stick with something like TUMS. It's literally calcium carbonate made for your body to eat. It's not even gross (orange!!). Or try yogurt. Seriously. It works.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Mar 29, 2014 4:13 am

I was just checking, I actually don't intend on eating chalk. For now I'm totally trying the bananas-chocolate-tea thing.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:45 am

Why does my pharmacist go out of her way to add "Warning: Breastfeeding not recommended while using this drug" and "This drug may impair ability to drive and operate heavy machinery" labels to my son's medication?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:53 am

Weird sense of humour? Stupid blanket regulations?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:11 am

Longes and Frank: thanks, that seemed to work. And now I have recovered from the illness and all its various symptoms. But I'll continue having my tea strong and black, and I'll stay on the bananas and chocolate, seeing as it's a problem that is common enough for me. Maybe I should look into having less fibre too?

Now back to just getting the shits in the non-literal sense, from work and dickhead visitors to the house who are wrong about politics and, extending their views to the logical conclusion, think I should be starving in the street. Still, there's always the chance that horrifying acts of violence will get legalised, with this government.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:20 am

So that when someone breaks into your house and loots your medicine cabinet, they know that partying on whatever it is your son takes is not something they should do if they are breastfeeding or planning to operate a vehicle or heavy machinery.

More seriously, it's just blanket regulations, but I don't know if I would call them stupid. Prescription medicine does have a way of getting around (self-medication, sale, theft, so on), and slapping user-agnostic warning labels on everything while letting the professional who wrote the prescription discuss your specific needs and concerns is safer for everyone.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:53 am

Yeah, that's true. Makes sense

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:03 am

Adults take childrens medications all the time. The breastfeeding thing is because it's actually kind of hard to get data on what drugs do when taken by breastfeeding women - what with the fact that relatively few people are lactating at any given time and they tend to have a thing they want to do with their milk. So if you go through the PDR, most of the medications have "unknown" effects when used by lactating women.

-Username17

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:48 pm

Oh, I don't dispute the labels are useful, but it was completely strange to watch this lady ask for my son's birth date, then his name, then grab the bottle and slap some stickers on it that clearly didn't apply.

I didn't think about the adults taking the kid's medicine. Getting this prescription was tough enough that I don't think I could take any away without it becoming an issue. But there are probably people who do that... Granted, I don't think they're concerned about breastfeeding, either, but whatever.

erik · Post by **erik** » Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:51 pm

Name and birthdate were probably just confirmation rather than deciding which labels to apply. I grant that it does come off as silly tho.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:56 am

Why is it that people don't seem to understand that if their medication isn't working well for them*, they should try talking to their doctor about other options? Are medical practitioners just so imposing and authoritarian that people are afraid to do this?

*This does not include people who have tried all the options and have to choose between the least of the evils.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:36 am

Most people in the US seem to believe that medicine is magical, and "fixes" them in some binary fashion. I have no idea why anyone would think that way.

Surgo · Post by **Surgo** » Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:28 pm

fectin wrote:Most people in the US seem to believe that medicine is magical, and "fixes" them in some binary fashion. I have no idea why anyone would think that way.

This thinking is not unusual. A little over a mere century ago most of the stuff that we have now would look exactly like that.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:07 pm

In fairness to medical professionals, you often don't have to be very authoritarian at all before some people will clam up, particularly if there's any sense that what they are suffering from may be preventable. Remember, we're talking about a species that lies to their dentists about flossing so often that you can't even joke about it at comedy clubs anymore without being considered a hack.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:58 am

What does "pansexual" mean?

I definitely get the vibe that it doesn't mean you're sexually into literally everything (i.e., wood-chippers are right out), but how far does it extend?

Squirrels?
Zombies?
Branding?
Amputation?
Coprophilia?
Armpit sex?
Hairjobs?

Or is it just a new buzzword for what I thought bisexual meant?

EDIT: Let me rephrase that: What should I assume people actually mean when they describe someone (e.g., themselves) as pansexual?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:27 am

Bi means two, as I'm sure you know.

There are more than two sexes, let alone genders, as you may or may not know.

As far as sexes, there are, at least, Male, Female, Male-to-Female (or Trans Fem), Female-to-Male (or Trans Male), and Intersex

As far as genders go, there are Male, Female,* Trans Male, Trans Female, Cis Male, Cis Female, Bigender, Gender Queer/Genderfluid/Pangender, Agendered, Androgyne, and I've probably missed something that somewhere identifies as.

If you're strictly into biological men and women, you're bisexual. If you're into men and trans men, you could conceivably call yourself bisexual perfectly legitimately. You could also call yourself gay (as a man) or straight (as a woman) perfectly legitimately.

Pansexual, basically, means that one is able to be sexually attracted to people who do not cleave closely to the Male and Female ends of the gender spectrum. And that's meaningful, because gender is messy and often more cultural than biological, and so there's a lot in between those two ends.

*edit: this was stream of consciousness, and I wound up double-counting, I guess, Cis*.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Apr 04, 2014 8:46 am

Prak_Anima wrote:As far as genders go, there are Male, Female, Trans Male, Trans Female, Cis Male, Cis Female,

I call bullshit. If Cis Male is male sex who identifies as male gender, and trans male is female sex that identifies as male gender, and andro/genderqueer ect are various kinds of people who do not identify, then what the fuck is a Male gender?

You are double counting someone.

TiaC · Post by **TiaC** » Fri Apr 04, 2014 8:51 am

I suppose there are people who are fine with their bio gender but would be fine with the other too. Not really andro---- as they live as their bio gender.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:09 am

Kaelik wrote:
Prak_Anima wrote:As far as genders go, there are Male, Female, Trans Male, Trans Female, Cis Male, Cis Female,
I call bullshit. If Cis Male is male sex who identifies as male gender, and trans male is female sex that identifies as male gender, and andro/genderqueer ect are various kinds of people who do not identify, then what the fuck is a Male gender?

You are double counting someone.

Yeah, you're right. That was stream of consciousness.

schpeelah · Post by **schpeelah** » Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:45 am

The people I asked about the difference between bi and pan defined bi along the lines of "attracted to your gender and other genders" and pan as a subset. So it's supposed to go like this:

Straight/gay: attracted to one gender
Bisexual: gay + at least one more
Pansexual: all genders.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:53 pm

I thought it was that people who identify as bisexual have an inherent pretentiousness of 3, which rises considerably if they attempt to tell you stories about how bisexual they totally are. Meanwhile, people who identify as pansexual have a base pretentiousness of 7.

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:39 pm

What about people (mostly girls) who are fashionably bisexual but aren't actually attracted to people of their own physical sex? What's their pretentiousness?

(One friend wanted to be pansexual because "it sounds awesome. A pan full of sexy times!" "You could be genderfluid* too." "Yeah, a sexual pan full of gender fluids!")

*I think that is the one where you accept that gender is a social construct and you fall along various points on it and don't care too much. I'm not sure.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:20 pm

What's the base pretentiousness of self-proclaimed omnisexuals?

radthemad4 · Post by **radthemad4** » Fri Apr 04, 2014 3:56 pm

schpeelah wrote:Bisexual: gay + at least one more

Sounds like any two categories should work, but what counts as a category? Am I bisexual if I'm into cars and bridges or if I'm into Lamborghinis and Ferraris? I've never heard of it being used that way except to indicate gay + straight though.

FrankTrollman wrote:I thought it was that people who identify as bisexual have an inherent pretentiousness of 3, which rises considerably if they attempt to tell you stories about how bisexual they totally are. Meanwhile, people who identify as pansexual have a base pretentiousness of 7.

-Username17

What's the unit and/or scale here (I have no idea what those numbers represent)?

Does omnisexual include pansexual + wood chippers, bridges, monuments, cars and whatnot?

Is it pretentious to bring up romantic orientation?