-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Not blue pill.. but laughter's best medicine
- Thread starter yinyang
- Start date
This Map Shows Where People Do and Don’t Like to Be Touched
Because you really needed a graphic to show you what's socially acceptable
Ever wonder whether you should shake someone’s hand or hug them? Oxford University now has the answer.
The British university, in conjunction with Finland’s Aalto University, conducted the largest study on physical contact ever and found that—surprise!—people don’t really want to be touched by strangers anywhere except their hands. But they did find that women are more comfortable with physical contact than men.
The researchers polled of over 1300 men and women in five different countries (Britain, Finland, France, Italy and Russia) about where they felt comfortable being touched by partners, friends of the same and opposite sex, family members and strangers. Their responses were distilled into a map that shows which areas are (literally) up for grabs and which are off limits. The results were published in journal PNAS this week.
The graphic shows the obvious: genitals are a taboo zones, people of both genders are more comfortable with physical contact with their mothers than their fathers. But the study also found odd tidbits: Italians are more comfortable being touched than Russians, for instance. Finns proved the most comfortable with contact and Brits the least.
The research also determined that when it came to touching, nominal relationships (like whether someone was a blood relative) mattered more than the frequency with which people encountered one another. “It is the relationship rather than familiarity that matters. A friend we haven’t seen for some time will still be able to touch areas where an acquaintance we see every day would not,” Oxford University’s Professor Dunbar explainson Oxford’s website.
http://time.com/4090025/touching-map/?iid=obinsite
Because you really needed a graphic to show you what's socially acceptable
Ever wonder whether you should shake someone’s hand or hug them? Oxford University now has the answer.
The British university, in conjunction with Finland’s Aalto University, conducted the largest study on physical contact ever and found that—surprise!—people don’t really want to be touched by strangers anywhere except their hands. But they did find that women are more comfortable with physical contact than men.
The researchers polled of over 1300 men and women in five different countries (Britain, Finland, France, Italy and Russia) about where they felt comfortable being touched by partners, friends of the same and opposite sex, family members and strangers. Their responses were distilled into a map that shows which areas are (literally) up for grabs and which are off limits. The results were published in journal PNAS this week.
The graphic shows the obvious: genitals are a taboo zones, people of both genders are more comfortable with physical contact with their mothers than their fathers. But the study also found odd tidbits: Italians are more comfortable being touched than Russians, for instance. Finns proved the most comfortable with contact and Brits the least.
The research also determined that when it came to touching, nominal relationships (like whether someone was a blood relative) mattered more than the frequency with which people encountered one another. “It is the relationship rather than familiarity that matters. A friend we haven’t seen for some time will still be able to touch areas where an acquaintance we see every day would not,” Oxford University’s Professor Dunbar explainson Oxford’s website.
http://time.com/4090025/touching-map/?iid=obinsite
:p
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.
So, that's what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?
The paying customers?
How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.
Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible
This shd please grass fans in our midst :p
People gather to smoke marijuana during the "420 Toronto" rally in Toronto. Cannabis possession is illegal in most countries under a 1925 treaty called the International Opium Convention. But just like the United States, some nations either flout the treaty or do not enforce it. Legalisation supporters consider pot possession either legal or tolerated in Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Czech Republic, India, Jamaica, Jordan, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, Uruguay, Germany and the Netherlands.
PHOTO BY AP
People on is illegal in most countries under a 1925 treaty called the International Opium Convention. But just like the United States, some nat
People gather to smoke marijuana during the "420 Toronto" rally in Toronto. Cannabis possession is illegal in most countries under a 1925 treaty called the International Opium Convention. But just like the United States, some nations either flout the treaty or do not enforce it. Legalisation supporters consider pot possession either legal or tolerated in Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Czech Republic, India, Jamaica, Jordan, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, Uruguay, Germany and the Netherlands.
PHOTO BY AP
People on is illegal in most countries under a 1925 treaty called the International Opium Convention. But just like the United States, some nat
Last edited:
An Indian shopkeeper arranges condom packets at a chemist shop in New Delhi. One of India's most senior lawyers has been ordered to study condom and other contraceptive packets to determine if their pictures are too racy and should be banned, according to reports. Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh must spend six weeks poring over sexy photographs, often of scantily clad women or couples in steamy embraces, promoting the products after the Supreme Court said they may breach India's tough obscenity laws.PHOTO BY AFP
Similar threads
