Tattooed policemen.
Discussion
Devil2575 said:
If life has taught me anything it is not to judge a book by it's cover
If you saw a book called Swedish Nurses in the Cucumber Patch, and the front cover had a picture of Swedish nurses pleasuring themselves in a cucumber patch, would you buy it for your mum for Christmas? Would you even bother to check out what it was really like by reading part of it before making a decision? Or would you judge it by its cover and look for a nice Mills & Boon?TurboHatchback said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
surely they are ruling out all the clever Inspector Frosts and Columbos if they only want big burly bruisers?
I know this will blow a lot of peoples minds but you can be big and clever 
.they are ruling out at least 50% of clever people by only choosing people who are big and clever
Retroman said:
Who's more fit? A police officer who smokes, eats junk food and never exercises but is slim because of their genes.
Or a police officer who eats healthy, doesn't smoke and excercises often but is overweight due to their genes?
Slightly O/T but no one is overweight because of their genes, they're overweight because they eat too much.Or a police officer who eats healthy, doesn't smoke and excercises often but is overweight due to their genes?
Someone who is slim is so because they either don't eat a lot or they exercise. Someone who is fat is so because they consume more calories than they need. It's that simple.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Devil2575 said:
If life has taught me anything it is not to judge a book by it's cover
If you saw a book called Swedish Nurses in the Cucumber Patch, and the front cover had a picture of Swedish nurses pleasuring themselves in a cucumber patch, would you buy it for your mum for Christmas? Would you even bother to check out what it was really like by reading part of it before making a decision? Or would you judge it by its cover and look for a nice Mills & Boon?Put your average footballer and rugby player in a suit. Which one looks more likely to cause trouble?
Devil2575 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Devil2575 said:
If life has taught me anything it is not to judge a book by it's cover
If you saw a book called Swedish Nurses in the Cucumber Patch, and the front cover had a picture of Swedish nurses pleasuring themselves in a cucumber patch, would you buy it for your mum for Christmas? Would you even bother to check out what it was really like by reading part of it before making a decision? Or would you judge it by its cover and look for a nice Mills & Boon?Put your average footballer and rugby player in a suit. Which one looks more likely to cause trouble?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Devil2575 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Devil2575 said:
If life has taught me anything it is not to judge a book by it's cover
If you saw a book called Swedish Nurses in the Cucumber Patch, and the front cover had a picture of Swedish nurses pleasuring themselves in a cucumber patch, would you buy it for your mum for Christmas? Would you even bother to check out what it was really like by reading part of it before making a decision? Or would you judge it by its cover and look for a nice Mills & Boon?Put your average footballer and rugby player in a suit. Which one looks more likely to cause trouble?
If I go into a shop and see a haynes manual for a Ford Focus I can be very sure as to it's contents and what information will be contained within.
You can't use that example to demonstrate that it's possible to know what a book is about based on it's cover alone.
Devil2575 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Devil2575 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Devil2575 said:
If life has taught me anything it is not to judge a book by it's cover
If you saw a book called Swedish Nurses in the Cucumber Patch, and the front cover had a picture of Swedish nurses pleasuring themselves in a cucumber patch, would you buy it for your mum for Christmas? Would you even bother to check out what it was really like by reading part of it before making a decision? Or would you judge it by its cover and look for a nice Mills & Boon?Put your average footballer and rugby player in a suit. Which one looks more likely to cause trouble?
Maybe he was a left wing journalist who'd written critical articles and was kidnapped by the far right and tattooed against his will.
Either of those could be the reason, but you've taken one look at him and made a snap judgement about his character based on his appearance and assumed he's a
.Welcome to my world!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
How do you know. He might have been working deep undercover for the special forces and had to have the tattoos so as not to blow his cover. (Donal McIntyre had a Chelsea tat whilst infiltrating their hard core hooligans, even though he was a Wimbledon fan).
Maybe he was a left wing journalist who'd written critical articles and was kidnapped by the far right and tattooed against his will.
Either of those could be the reason, but you've taken one look at him and made a snap judgement about his character based on his appearance and assumed he's a.
Welcome to my world!
Please. Don't be absurd. Maybe he was a left wing journalist who'd written critical articles and was kidnapped by the far right and tattooed against his will.
Either of those could be the reason, but you've taken one look at him and made a snap judgement about his character based on his appearance and assumed he's a
.Welcome to my world!
This is at best an appeal to extremes.
Devil2575 said:
Please. Don't be absurd.
This is at best an appeal to extremes.
You have made a judgement based on his appearance. Even though you urge others not to. You don't know this guy at all. He could be like the Nazi tattooed copper in Banshee (if you've seen that). He could have had mental health issues when younger, all kinds of scenarios are possible.This is at best an appeal to extremes.
You've judged the book by the very dubious cover.
Devil2575 said:
Slightly O/T but no one is overweight because of their genes, they're overweight because they eat too much.
Someone who is slim is so because they either don't eat a lot or they exercise. Someone who is fat is so because they consume more calories than they need. It's that simple.
If you don't think anyone is ever too big or too thin because of their genes, you don't understand genetics very well.Someone who is slim is so because they either don't eat a lot or they exercise. Someone who is fat is so because they consume more calories than they need. It's that simple.
Retroman said:
Devil2575 said:
Slightly O/T but no one is overweight because of their genes, they're overweight because they eat too much.
Someone who is slim is so because they either don't eat a lot or they exercise. Someone who is fat is so because they consume more calories than they need. It's that simple.
If you don't think anyone is ever too big or too thin because of their genes, you don't understand genetics very well.Someone who is slim is so because they either don't eat a lot or they exercise. Someone who is fat is so because they consume more calories than they need. It's that simple.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
When the allies liberated the concentration camps, the inmates we all thin. Thousands of them. There wasn't anyone at 20 stone saying "I've been here for 2 years, worked like a slave and fed very little, but I just can't shift the weight, it's my genes."
Yes i'm pretty sure if someone was to eat 200 or so calories a day they will lose fat. They will also lose muscle mass and years off their life through malnutrition if it's kept up.Take two people of the same age, sex, height. One is overweight and the other is underweight.
Both have the same activity level and both consume 2000 calories a day. The overweight one keeps gaining weight and the underweight one continues to lose weight. Why do you think this would be?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Retroman said:
Devil2575 said:
Slightly O/T but no one is overweight because of their genes, they're overweight because they eat too much.
Someone who is slim is so because they either don't eat a lot or they exercise. Someone who is fat is so because they consume more calories than they need. It's that simple.
If you don't think anyone is ever too big or too thin because of their genes, you don't understand genetics very well.Someone who is slim is so because they either don't eat a lot or they exercise. Someone who is fat is so because they consume more calories than they need. It's that simple.
a big fat bloke will have also have quite a lot of muscle under that fat, think about it he's effectively weight lifting all the time, that muscle uses lots of calories
they didn't get enough calories to live (they'd also have weaker hearts under more strain, the heart is a muscle too and also muscle tissue would be used up for energy)
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
Comes across as a little, "tattoos are for the proles" to me.
When the PM & Royal Family are covered in tattoos I'll accept your position. Until then I'll maintain mine.Quite a specific acid-test, the RF and the PM to have one.
If we're being crude with class generalisations, then perhaps the 'upper class' aren't quite taken yet, but I'd suggest tattoos are now very mainstream and well accepted in the 'middle classes'.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Devil2575 said:
If life has taught me anything it is not to judge a book by it's cover
If you saw a book called Swedish Nurses in the Cucumber Patch, and the front cover had a picture of Swedish nurses pleasuring themselves in a cucumber patch, would you buy it for your mum for Christmas? Would you even bother to check out what it was really like by reading part of it before making a decision? Or would you judge it by its cover and look for a nice Mills & Boon?I think it'd be fair to judge someone with a massive swastika tattooed across their face, for example. But simply because someone has a tattoo is brain-dead thinking. The thought may be intuitive, but we can override it with rational thought.
Retroman said:
Devil2575 said:
Slightly O/T but no one is overweight because of their genes, they're overweight because they eat too much.
Someone who is slim is so because they either don't eat a lot or they exercise. Someone who is fat is so because they consume more calories than they need. It's that simple.
If you don't think anyone is ever too big or too thin because of their genes, you don't understand genetics very well.Someone who is slim is so because they either don't eat a lot or they exercise. Someone who is fat is so because they consume more calories than they need. It's that simple.
You are right I don't understand genetics very well, but then it isn't my area of expertise.
However the subject of what determines someone's weight has been researched extensively by people who do understand all this stuff.
This is a newspaper article so not ideal but it pretty much sums up what the reseach says:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/eating-too...
This is a podcast whe one of the leading researchers into the subject is interviewed, Professor Susan Jebb.
She explains how they proved that all the talk of low metabolism etc was all just not true.
Retroman said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
When the allies liberated the concentration camps, the inmates we all thin. Thousands of them. There wasn't anyone at 20 stone saying "I've been here for 2 years, worked like a slave and fed very little, but I just can't shift the weight, it's my genes."
Yes i'm pretty sure if someone was to eat 200 or so calories a day they will lose fat. They will also lose muscle mass and years off their life through malnutrition if it's kept up.Take two people of the same age, sex, height. One is overweight and the other is underweight.
Both have the same activity level and both consume 2000 calories a day. The overweight one keeps gaining weight and the underweight one continues to lose weight. Why do you think this would be?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff