 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2008Eyesight and Lifespan
I was interested by a recent joke by RT about immortality (he was basically taking the piss out of the biography of Bates that I posted a while ago). He and "Brainy" seemed to find it very funny, but I actually started thinking about it seriously. Anyway, I have a theory that the better the eyesight is, the longer you live. Because if you have perfect eyesight then, as Bates discovered himself, that means you have a mind at rest so that means the rest of the body stays at peak condition and doesn't get worn out. A mind at rest means that all the other nerves are at rest. I sometimes even hear stories about primitives who have been able to live for 140+ years! I don't know if it's true, but seeing as the primitives are often said to have remarkable vision, like Bates said I think it's completely possible and plausible. I mean, ceteris paragus of course. If a disease or epidemic is spreading around and one remarks 'no, your theory must be wrong because they all died even though they had super eyesight' then that would be unreasonable and illogical. You have to keep your argument considering all other factors present, otherwise it would be flawed. So all other things equal, what do you guys think about it? Is there any real statistics to back my theory up, or am I talking crap? In article <c579ae62-1b71-486c-aa5d-02841c7111ba@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > I sometimes even hear stories about primitives who have been able to > live for 140+ years! I don't know if it's true, but seeing as the > primitives are often said to have remarkable vision, like Bates said I > think it's completely possible and plausible. Forget "primitives." Moses lived to be 120 and I've never seen a picture of him wearing glasses. He had no trouble reading the tablets and he must have been well beyond the age of presbyopia when he retrieved them from Mt. Sinai. He must have practiced rest methods daily and certainly epitomized the mind at rest. See Exodus 32. > Is there any real statistics to back my theory up, or am I talking > crap? Why concern yourself with proof now when you've come so far without it?  Signature~RT Yeah! Moses! I knew that too! Something else I forgot to mention in my first post is that there are accounts of people from earlier civilization who could live to exceed 500 years! (According to my friend, anyhow) Is there any scientific or historical method we could use to confirm this? Like, using carbon 14 Half Life or something? (I can't remember what that technology does, but I think it could be used to measure how long something dated back using radiation emissions or something) Also, since we're on the subject of lifespan, I think the record holder today is a Japanese guy, and he claims to be 143 year old (but people are unsure if he's telling the truth!). Not sure about his eyesight though. I'd guess he has bloody remarkable acuity. >Why concern yourself with proof now when you've come so far without it? Simple. Fact is a truth that can already be demonstrated, and needs no proof for its confirmation. Theory does. > >Why concern yourself with proof now when you've come so far without it? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Theory does. Wow, it's only April and we may have a winner in the most retarded post contest. Congratulations. It's not 'only April'. It's APRIL FOOLS! Oh wait, it's the second today. Darn. Anyway, you are the one who deserves the great congratulations, friend! I mean, I was not aware of any 'most retarded post contest'. But you seem quite emphatic about it. Maybe you've been competing in it for too long, or something. > It's not 'only April'. It's APRIL FOOLS! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > seem quite emphatic about it. Maybe you've been competing in it for > too long, or something. emphatic. competing? are you sure you know what they mean? i love it when you try to be clever because it just completely backfires on you and makes you look like an even bigger 'tard! it's a preposterous supposition to suggest that the awareness of something includes its involvement! haha you say you weren't aware of any content? why would someone without a brain be aware of anything? Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. I know what 'emphatic', and 'competing' mean. Emphatic is the state of being keen for something. Competing is where individuals go against each other in order to 'win' (a game, race, etc.) by surpassing the others. Content? Aware? Are you referring to Bates' biography? I didn't write the biography, Rishi did. But, it got messed up in the translation from italian to english (that's why it sounds a little strange). What are you talking about, trying to be clever? Backfires on me? HuH? Please can you explain that? Oh, I've figured out what you're saying now... Yeah, spammer took the mick out of me, so I had the prerogative to return the favour! People who continually call other people retards (like spammer) are often just covering up their own mental backward- ness... As for me trying to sound clever, I think there's nothing wrong with that... unl3ss u w4nt me 2 talk lyk this... >it's a preposterous supposition to suggest that the awareness of >something includes its involvement! I don't think it's preposterous at all. Awareness of something often does include its involvement. If you are 'aware' that Xbox 360 has come out, you are likely to get out and buy it. It's the very principle that 'ADVERTISEMENT' is based on. >> it's a preposterous supposition to suggest that the awareness of >> something includes its involvement! > > I don't think it's preposterous at all. > Awareness of something often does include its involvement. Rubbish. > If you are 'aware' that Xbox 360 has come out, you are likely to get > out and buy it. I havent. I know many things. I don't, rush out to buy it. Because I don't want one. If I see a poster advertising a "dance" I'll be aware of it, but I won't attend. It is preposterous. > It's the very principle that 'ADVERTISEMENT' is based on. And what a waste of money that is. Like an advert for cheap sh.t lager is going to go and make me buy a can of Carling! >Yes... thought so... Thought what so? Look at it this way: If you are a retard, and you see a commercial saying: 'Retardism gallore! Compete for most retarded post of the month!' You'd want to get involved as soon as you could, right? Well, not you personally, but "spammer" probably would. He's obsessed with the word 'retard'. Obsession with a product=Urge to buy/get involved. >poster advertising a "dance" I'll be aware of it, but I won't attend. Yeah well, if you were obsessed with dancing you most likely would! >It is preposterous. It's not proposterous at all. But this argument certainly is rather proposterous. Why we are arguing over such a mundane thing is beyond me. But let us continue, since it is of such great fascination to you. >Good. You can read a dictionary. I doubt you actually know what they >"mean" though. No! I didn't. I improvised that definition, from my own words! I know what they mean, jeez! >Sorry. I meant contest, of which I guess following Bates is like a >contest where the majority are losers. I'd agree with you that 'the majority are losers'. But the majority have strayed from the Original Sources and so are not recieving the real benefit! >And what a waste of money that is. Let me get this straight. You think advertisement is a waste of money? You really have no clue about marketing strategy, that's for sure! I definitely wouldn't hire you to pitch my new products...! >> Good. You can read a dictionary. I doubt you actually know what they >> "mean" though. > > No! I didn't. I improvised that definition, from my own words! > I know what they mean, jeez! Wow. Im impressed. You respond in a keyboard bashing cry baby toy throwing way to an insult. >> Sorry. I meant contest, of which I guess following Bates is like a >> contest where the majority are losers. > > I'd agree with you that 'the majority are losers'. But the majority > have strayed from the Original Sources and so are not recieving the > real benefit! I believe the only winners are those that don't really have any issues, and those that are trying to peddle it's story to the detriment of those who don't want to know! >> And what a waste of money that is. > > Let me get this straight. You think advertisement is a waste of money? Yup. Aside from awareness of a product, Im not really strayed by marketing and advertising. I look into somewhere like Morrisons and Im put off by the glaringly full shelves and warm colours. I believe it is one of those things that attempt to provide the feel good factor with an impressive range of goods in the supermarket, yet it puts me off because at the end of the day, it's all spiel. I know what I want to buy. > You really have no clue about marketing strategy, that's for sure! I > definitely wouldn't hire you to pitch my new products...! The problem is, most marketing is irrelevent. There is very little substance to a product and most marketing appears to be nothing more than polishing a turd. I wouldn't want to sell you're products. However if the product is good, then it will generally speak for itself. Sadly, there are a load of fools and crackpots out there who let themselves get swayed by false marketing and advertising. When I go shopping, I know what I want. >> Yes... thought so... > > Thought what so? What? I have no idea. You've taken it out of context. > Look at it this way: Look at what? > If you are a retard, Which you have first hand experience of... > and you see a commercial saying: If zetsu sees a commercial... > 'Retardism gallore! Compete for most retarded post of the month!' That's even if you understand it right... > You'd want to get involved as soon as you could, right? Not being a retard, I wouldn't know. You might, but that's another story. You're quite intrigued about the idea of being involved with everything you have an awareness of. > Well, not you personally, but "spammer" probably would. > He's obsessed with the word 'retard'. Probably because we have such a fine example of in in Zetsu. > Obsession with a product=Urge to buy/get involved. Which we can conclude is an irrelevent straw man argument. Any potential involvement also needs the pre-requiste of interest. Something which I would suppose that spammer doesn't have. He is only merely aware of it, and knowing you condition and therefore your vested interest, spammer was only merely performing a public duty and making you aware of the event. >> poster advertising a "dance" I'll be aware of it, but I won't attend. > > Yeah well, if you were obsessed with dancing you most likely would! You're the one failing to argue his way out of a wet paper bag here. You're suggesting if one is aware of something, then you are involved with it. >> It is preposterous. > > It's not proposterous at all. But this argument certainly is rather > proposterous. Why we are arguing over such a mundane thing is beyond > me. But let us continue, since it is of such great fascination to you. It is of very little fasciation to me other than as a means of humour. But your seriousness in discussion shows it is of great importance to you to defend his position. I myself find it quite a laugh, because, Im not trying. OK Mister you win... You've totally confused me, I can't remember what we were arguing about in the first place! Something about marketing or other... Did you watch The Apprentice > Did you watch The Apprentice Good god no. Too bad, you might have learnt some marketing strategy from it... haha just kidding (don't go mad!) > Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. > > I know what 'emphatic', and 'competing' mean. > Emphatic is the state of being keen for something. > Competing is where individuals go against each other in order to > 'win' (a game, race, etc.) by surpassing the others. Good. You can read a dictionary. I doubt you actually know what they "mean" though. > Content? Aware? Are you referring to Bates' biography? Sorry. I meant contest, of which I guess following Bates is like a contest where the majority are losers. > What are you talking about, trying to be clever? Backfires on me? HuH? > Please can you explain that? Yes... thought so... > Is there any real statistics to back my theory up, or am I talking > crap? You are talking crap! (even that e-mail address you write under "absolutelyinvincible", is total crap! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.