digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at cracked.com

The 6 Most Frequently Quoted Bulls**t Statistics

cracked.com — Facts tend to survive based on how interesting they are, rather than whether or not they're, y'know, true.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bluepill2, on 05/12/2008, -34/+300True that. Try this statistic: 90% of diggers (myself included) love anything pro-Obama or pro-Ron Paul, even though the candidates themselves are nearly complete opposites.
    Corollary: What would diggers do in a bizarro world where Ron Paul somehow mutinies the GOP convention and ends up the nominee against Obama? 90% head splosion, that's what.
    • GregViers, on 05/12/2008, -24/+18Running mates is better! Obama/Paul is 2008! :S
      • gsxrjason, on 05/12/2008, -5/+19I would love to see that. McCain would have good cause to be nervous, Paul is still getting like 10% of the republican vote.
        • wild, on 05/12/2008, -5/+3That wouldn't help. It would actually solidify the base for McCain.
        • wphj, on 05/12/2008, -1/+11Paul is only getting as high as 10% of the vote because tons of people who will vote McCain in November don't bother voting in a decided election.
        • gyrfalcon, on 05/12/2008, -13/+8Obama/Paul would be cool if Obama actually had a brain...
          • ssn697, on 05/12/2008, -4/+8Hmmm, one was the Head of the Law Review while in college. The other? Head cook for his frat.

            Nice comment. Way to step up. Don't let the rhetoric door hit you in the ass on the way out...
          • gyrfalcon, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2You forgot Paul was a doctor dumb ass, not some scummy Chicago politician in bed with Daley and his group.
          • MacEnvy, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3@gyra
            Yeah, a doctor who after seeing the evidence for himself in medical school, still doesn't believe in evolution. Not exactly my idea of a big thinker.
          • gyrfalcon, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2@MacEnvy
            Paul doesn't believe in the evolutionary views pushed by Atheists... get over it and learn what the ***** science and evidence actually is.
      • ssn697, on 05/12/2008, -2/+11And GreViers manages to prove bluepill2's point about Diggers completely ignoring that Ron PAul and Obama are polar opposites on 95% of their policies, while getting Dugg up.
    • didiman, on 05/12/2008, -21/+3590% of diggers only have two functioning brain cells, the rest have been destroyed from drinking too much kool-aid
      • cerejota, on 05/12/2008, -7/+3Bah, you have no sense of irony... ANONS, ACTIVATE!
      • scy1192, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1actually I'm drinking grape kool-aid right now. my favorite kind. next is orange but they didn't have it at the store.
      • thscientist1, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1black people on digg!
    • KevinRWright, on 05/12/2008, -2/+29"Opposites Attract"
      -Paula Abdul and that crazy cartoon cat
      • wild, on 05/12/2008, -1/+27His name is MC Scat Kat.

        Recognize.
        • cerejota, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2FGJ!!!
        • kiiwii, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5I'm ashamed to admit that I knew that off the top of my head as well :-(
          • wild, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Its ok. He works better on an ironic t-shirt than the Pokemon characters that will be popular on the 20 somethings next decade.
      • nalen33, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1I'm sorry, but the lyric is "I'm dressed like a cat," thank you very much.
      • Jonjonr6, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3You know, "scat" is another word for *****.
    • FredFredrickson, on 05/12/2008, -9/+37It's not just dig - Obama's got the popular vote.
    • wolferz, on 05/12/2008, -13/+18That "the candidates themselves are nearly complete opposites" is irrelevant. You're assuming diggers actually know or even care what a candidates position is... when really all they care about is that some guys said they were good and this other guy said they were good and thus they must be good and every one will like me if i vote for them.
      • DooM, on 05/12/2008, -3/+5Actually, there are good even if mutually exclusive reasons for voting for either of those men. For people who actually think there is more than one issue upon which to form an opinion, there issues that are deal-breakers and then there are those which you can happily just disagree on. Are you really going to agree with ANYone about EVERYthing..?
        • andburn1, on 05/12/2008, -3/+15What the *****? Obama and Paul differ on almost every issue! If you're trying to not be picky about the issues, you have to look at their political philosophies, which are OPPOSITE. They're not just different, they're opposite. Thesis and antithesis. Paul says the government should do nothing or next to nothing, and Obama believes the government has a responsibility to act in order to better the lives of its citizens. One can't agree with both.
          • DarkReign16, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2Paul says you should govern yourself, and Obama says the government should govern you.

            Maybe they just respect the two for not being the typical dishonest politician? Ever think of that..?
          • awills, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4Sure you can. I believe that the government should stay out of marriage and drug regulation, but that it should provide health care for all citizens.
          • DooM, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2But it's really more complex than that isn't it..? Sure you can boil anyone down to one issue or another but what really matters to an individual voter is far more complicated. For example, I could support Ron Paul based on his stance on fiscal responsibility (which I think is probably one of the most important issues facing us) and Iraq - at the same time I very much disagree with his stance on most social issues, however, I can also make a calculated stand that since there is a democratic majority in Congress he wouldn't be able to make much head way in that department and so I could accept him on that level.
            I'm also one of those weird anti-abortion liberals and so I part company with Obama on THAT issue but strategically there are far more important issues for me with which I agree with the man.
            Is there a difference between a libertarian and a socialist..? Yep. But in the larger context of this country it doesn't matter nearly as much to me as some of the other issues.
    • cerejota, on 05/12/2008, -18/+4Dream ticket:

      Obama/Paul '08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • dnl2ba, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5@bluepill2: I think that's true, but why oh why did you have to drag that into this comment thread? Can't I read anything on Digg without being subjected to something about a 2008 presidential candidate?
    • RX9735, on 05/12/2008, -1/+20In other news... Three out of four people make up 75% of the population.
    • EntropyMan, on 05/12/2008, -3/+8bluepill conveniently forgets we are in a war which both candidates oppose and would end. We can debate how big a federal role there should be for healthcare, education etc.. We can not debate whether it's okay to have war (and other) criminals running our country into the ground. We have to right this ship before we can even begin to debate the finer points of federalism, public vs. private role, and even abortion -- not that those issues are unimportant, but I'd rather have either a Paul or Obama style attack on corruption than spend another minute arguing for or against prayer in schools.
    • roystgnr, on 05/12/2008, -2/+10There isn't a complete overlap of Paul and Obama supporters just because they've both had their Digg cheering sections, but "complete opposites" is a bit of a stretch. Honesty, opposition to the Iraq War, support for (at least most of) the Bill of Rights, and concern with overexpansion of executive power are a fair base of commonalities to root for, even if you're reasonably skeptical that one candidate might not have enough concern for the dangers of deregulation or that the other might be 180 degrees away, insufficiently worried about the flaws of central planning.
    • Petrushka72, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Yes, they are opposites in regard to almost all their policies. But respect for due process; respect for the constitution -- these are some pretty big similarities. And it's sure not easy to find any other candidates who stand for even one of those things.
      Obviously, it's not so much policies that these people are interested in, as in having a president who won't place him/herself above the law. That *would* be a nice change.
    • mossblaser, on 05/12/2008, -2/+9Also, did you know 94% of statistics are made up on the spot?
      • rrbest, on 05/12/2008, -0/+112% of digg users believe you are lying
      • sneezachoo, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Yeah I've heard that exact statistic before.
      • onefatfrog, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1It's actually up to 96% now (election year, you know).
      • monalisaa, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2 Lies, damn lies and statistics.
    • ricerfuel, on 05/12/2008, -2/+7It's a shame you guys in America cant vote Green Party.
      • Cattywampus, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Well we could, but it wouldn't do much good. To get into the U.S. Congress you need to get more votes than other candidates in your state or district, which means people from third parties are only going to get scattered representation.

        In some other countries, if a party gets say 10% of the vote nationwide, it gets 10% of the seats in the national parliament or assembly of whatever. I like that idea, but unfortunately the U.S. system isn't set up that way.
        • Jackson0909, on 05/13/2008, -1/+0Congress is a representation of the states. It isn't a representation of the collective US. Just because you have a speckling of yahoos scattered around the nation doesn't mean they deserve a seat.
      • brycelb, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6Of course you can. The better question is why would you want to?
        • geoboy, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3The corporations, man! They completely own us! We are merely their slaves! Walmart totally controls our free will! We've got to stop them before it's too late!!!

          /At least, I think that's the platform the Green Party runs on.
        • bosssmiley, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Oh god no! Compulsory sandals, bicycles, muesli and beards for all (women included). Birdmincers...sorry, that should read 'wind turbines' on every hill. Composting our market gardens with our own dung. An end to scientific medicine and its' replacement by junk science 'complementary medicine'. Life would not be worth living.
          I vote ABG (anyone but Green!)
    • AAK15, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Ha! That would require it to be possible for RP to get the nomination
  • mentallyinhell, on 05/12/2008, -9/+326The only thing I hate worse than ***** statistics is the group of people who swear by them. I can show people cold hard logic and they still believe an email over me. An entire generation is crippled by the internet.
    • dunnylovehun, on 05/12/2008, -1/+72It's not the internet's fault there are stupid people in the world. The internet just makes you more aware they're out there. It's the same way the rise of CNN made people think that the world was coming to an end because there was 24 hour coverage of every disaster that happened.
    • halleyscomet, on 05/12/2008, -0/+15Oh, that kind of stupidity predates the Internet. Before the Internet it was TV, newspapers, random publications, something a source they trust said, or just plain notions that they didn't want dislodged because they've cherished them so long.
    • hipnerd, on 05/12/2008, -1/+99I just ran into this yesterday with my mother-in-law who told me that video games were the cause of the spike in violence that we see today. I brought up the crime statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice Web site and showed her that violent crime has actually plummeted over the past 15-20 years, and she still didn;t believe it because "she has seen statistics, too" although she couldn't remember who compiled the statistics or where she had seen them.

      It was a complete case of rejecting reality because it did not fit into her preconceived notions. I've seen this same phenomenon in politics and religion as well. It's one of the most corrosive forces in society.
    • digggggggggg, on 05/12/2008, -0/+48Kinda like how a lot of Koreans believe in "Fan Death", where they believe that having an electric fan on in the same room while you sleep can kill you.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death
      • joshhan, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Ha! I remember my dad yelling at me about this when I was a kid! In fact, I just had an argument with the wife this past weekend about it. I never understood the reasoning behind it. Thanks for the link.
      • HoratioHellpop, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Lots of Koreans sleep in bathtubs, though ....
    • Zera, on 05/12/2008, -2/+13I agreed with you until you said "An entire generation is crippled by the internet."

      That's a very pessimistic view. I would say "An entire generation is EMPOWERED by the Internet"

      C'mon now, its not like ***** didn't exist before the Internet. If anything, the amount of ***** has gone down because now, with the Internet, facts are so easy to check. The Internet has also defeated all significant censorship, and censorship is the historical #1 method of ***** propagation.
      • HoratioHellpop, on 05/12/2008, -4/+2I was with you until you said "because now, with the Internet, facts are so easy to check" .... except that the checks can be just as misleading. I say find it in a physical printed medium or a recording.
        • Zera, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4Yea, because those sources are infallible.
    • tyywebb, on 05/12/2008, -0/+11Go ahead and pick yourself up a copy of any women's magazine. They were all here before the internet.
    • agarwaengrc, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7That's kinda backwards... I 'd heard ALL of these urban legends (and more) back in my teenage days (urban legends where much more prevalent before the Internet, I mean, newspapers and magazines especially where full of ***** and everybody read at least one), and like the uptight anal-retentive bastard that I was, I always wanted to counter some of them that seemed obviously ridiculous to me. Well guess what, for 5-6 false pre-conceived notions I must 've spent months searching bibliography, which of course no one believed or cared to listen about, and couldn't have it available with me at all times. Nowadays, I can be a pretentious dick and annoy people just by sending a link to a well documented page about whatever false beliefs someone has. Truth spreads easily.
    • B3N3, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4Wait a sec, so you're saying "Fwd: Fwd: Fwd:" != TRUE?
    • sgregory416, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1did you try to make up your own bull ***** statistic, im not a dumb ass the internet didn't ***** me up.
    • neuro420, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.
    • absurdist, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1I don't believe you.
    • onefatfrog, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Sounds like a personal problem to me. Your credibility must suck.
  • TonyKay, on 05/12/2008, -12/+209100% of the people who quote these statistics are ***** idiots.
    • yacks, on 05/12/2008, -2/+39128% of statistics can be made up 114% of the time.
    • wild, on 05/12/2008, -4/+21I wouldn't call your mom an idiot.
    • plethorex, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7Here's a statistic I can get behind.
    • NeoCortex, on 05/12/2008, -0/+16There are 3 types of lies:
      Lies, Damn Lies, and statistics.
    • 4d669, on 05/12/2008, -0/+11I read the 8 spider crap on a Snapple 'Fun Fact' cap.
      • dynelol, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4I got a Snapple and it had a Zoolander quote. "Merman eh eh eh MERMAN!" I about ***** myself.
    • ronaldinho, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3including this one?
    • Koookie, on 05/12/2008, -6/+4If I quote one of these statistics, do I get to ***** an idiot?
    • mossblaser, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3Also, did you know 94% of statistics are made up on the spot?
    • moush, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2Believing what cracked says is pretty stupid also.
    • celkin, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1You can use statistics to prove anything. 40% of all people know that.
    • cbergeron, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Does your 100% count?

      Yes. It does.
  • Chatchkie, on 05/12/2008, -1/+37It is sad that I heard all of these waiting for the bus in 4th grade.

    I thought all older men were sex crazed, and that I should start thinking about sex for the entire day.
    Though I had no idea what sex was.
    • whatsupimphil, on 05/12/2008, -0/+23Another one from fourth grade - 1/3 of all $1 bills have been in a stripper's g-string. No idea if it's true...
    • Tayls, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5I never believed that sex statistic, at least not for me. The fact that it was come up by a group of women sitting around talking about sex makes sense. Every women's magazine is about looking pretty and having better sex, while men's magazines have an entire array of articles from entertainment and technology to little facts for better overall health. Completely makes sense now.
  • kurupttek, on 05/12/2008, -10/+100This is the internet. You can say *****.
  • kurupttek, on 05/12/2008, -9/+150"Were you imaging a massive spider-orgy?"
    Was i the only one
    • JacobParker, on 05/12/2008, -1/+12No.
    • crossmr, on 05/12/2008, -6/+9several replies and no one picked up the spelling mistake..I'm going to need to see your digg cards..
    • Yeknom, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2I want candy, bubble-gum and taffy. Skip to the sweet shop with my sweetheart sandy...
  • robbymcdobby, on 05/12/2008, -2/+154I think that the spider-eating statistic is skewed due to a small number of sickos who eat like 500 spiders a year on purpose.
    • lukemandese, on 05/12/2008, -2/+7The 1%ers
    • yojiffyskippy, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Bikini spiders?
    • macweirdo42, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1Dave Barry, is that you?
    • JacobParker, on 05/12/2008, -0/+8Who the ***** counts how many spiders everyone ate in a year? And who the ***** eats spiders to make the statistic higher?
    • P4Paarth, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Don't really think it makes them sickos. In some parts of the world it is their culture to eat raw insects. Different, yes, but not something that makes them sickos.
      • hmunkey, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1Nope, it makes you a sicko. :)
      • Virgule, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2in my part of the world we regularly eat cow slices, otherwise known as 'steaks'. We are such sickos >_
        • cbergeron, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1You're going to be very disappointed when your inconsideration to other cultures takes your steaks from you because they have to be shipped overseas (in order for you to keep your job).

          The global game is changing guys. We can't stop it.

          Suddenly mosquito's sound tasty, don't they?
  • galvo, on 05/12/2008, -2/+23Page blocked by Websense.

    67% of all statistics are wrong.
  • plizard, on 05/12/2008, -14/+18we're in a recession!
    • mcquitty, on 05/12/2008, -3/+11[citation needed]

      Last quarter saw growth...
      • nalen33, on 08/29/2008, -3/+4No, no. It doesn't matter what the historical characteristics of a recession are, the talking heads in the news departments of every media agency, save CNBC, says we're in a recession! Your facts, logic, statistics, and definitions have no place here sir!
        • mcquitty, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1The world is falling apart, they say too...

          By all measure, some people say we are entering a depression....

          But we aren't there yet. But keep hoping, we might make it!!
      • GhostyBoy, on 05/12/2008, -1/+9Measure the growth against inflation.
      • greeniemeani, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1That's what she DIDN'T say.
  • tetchan, on 05/12/2008, -2/+10560 percent of the time it works...everytime.
    • chuckDontSurf, on 05/12/2008, -11/+4Are you talking about Colt 45?
    • GanjaGirl, on 05/12/2008, -1/+29It has real bits of panther in it, so you know it's good.
      • Antwan718, on 05/12/2008, -0/+19It smells like Bigfoot's DICK!!!
      • sleepysteve, on 05/12/2008, -0/+12It smells like a turd wrapped in burnt hair!
      • evilgeniuscow, on 05/12/2008, -0/+9It smells like a used diaper filled with Indian food!
      • tdogg241, on 05/12/2008, -0/+9It's a formidable scent...stings the nostrils.

        I'm not gonna lie, that smells like pure gasoline.
    • jamwil87, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2It's very pungent. ...I'm not gonna lie to you, that smells like pure gasoline.
  • geneusutwerk, on 05/12/2008, -8/+36Well everyone knows that 70% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
    • wild, on 05/12/2008, -1/+52And we all know that joke appears in 72% of all statistic related threads.
      • rrbest, on 05/12/2008, -0/+272%?... I think its a fair statement to say 100% in this case.
    • duser4, on 05/12/2008, -5/+10Actually, new studies suggest that 74.8% of all statistics are made up
    • SqlByte, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Including this one.
    • ace1220, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2But only about 25% of people know that.
  • namelessXsilent, on 05/12/2008, -0/+118How many of these are on Snapple bottle caps?
    • mastern, on 05/12/2008, -0/+9Well only half of the Snapple facts are even right. It says that on the first cap.
  • KevinRWright, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5390% of the game is mental, the other half is physical.
    • rabidg00se, on 05/12/2008, -3/+495% of this game is half mental*
    • indigit4l, on 05/12/2008, -0/+9You can observe a lot just by watching
    • krets, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3If people aren't going to come to the game, you can't make them stop.
    • bicyclethief, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Hate the game, not the player.
    • kimcheefreak17, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1*****, I lost the game...
  • Number23, on 05/12/2008, -2/+15063% of all Cracked lists appear on the front page of Digg
  • slothlovechunk, on 05/12/2008, -3/+51That 10% of your brain ***** has always bugged the crap out of me. Like, if we can figure out how to use it we will all be able to talk to each other telepathically or something. It makes people think that we aren't just a bunch of irrational primates.
    • wild, on 05/12/2008, -1/+15No, unlocking it just means we will have Toy Story graphics.
    • directedition, on 05/12/2008, -3/+8Well, we ARE irrational primates. But yeah, that stat is annoying as hell. Different parts of the brain are meant for different tasks. In truth, we use all of our brain at some point. But still, bs like this gets pontificated by sci-fi shows like Stargate SG-1 (which really should know better) and little factoid fortune cookies.
    • Echo18, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4I completely agree with you. I had an argument with my friend the other day who is a BIO major over this very statistic... it astounded me that he didn't believe me.
    • thephosphorbox, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3I think it's more accurate to say many people CHOOSE to use only 10% of their brains :)
    • cupid311, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2the 10% of your brain stat is false. My class had a talk about this with my Psych teacher as well. We do use 100% of our brain, just a lot of things are done subconsciously. We don't actively control every part of our brain every waking hour. Just like breathing and blinking for the most part are done subconsciously.
    • greeniemeani, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I thought using 10 percent of your brain meant that they only noticed heavy physical activity in what accounts for 10% of your actual brain...
    • AussieFox, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I've always thought they meant that your conscious thoughts only made up 10 % of your brain.
  • ColonelJessup, on 05/12/2008, -32/+1799.9% of diggers live in their mom's basement, are chronic masturbators, and have never had the sexual intercourse.
    • JacobParker, on 05/12/2008, -20/+7"the sexual intercourse"? get some english lessons you dumb *****.
    • Luxembourg, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4I think that's how they talk on "the internets"
    • scy1192, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I actually live upstairs of my mom's house; I can't legally own my own house
    • hmunkey, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Wooooooooooooooo .1%!
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -30/+361) Rich people pay less taxes.
    • MxM111, on 05/12/2008, -14/+33Percentage-wise they do (as compared to middle class).
      • toconnor, on 05/12/2008, -5/+20Percentage-wise they don't (if you mean compared to the tax burden of the middle class). http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html
        • eluusive, on 05/12/2008, -3/+6Nice deceptive statistics. Those are percentage of taxes paid to the IRS -- not percentage of the persons income. Learn to read.
          • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3It's good enough to clearly show "the rich don't pay enough taxes" is populist pandering non sense.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/12/2008, -3/+5How about per service used
        • cbergeron, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3Rich people use more expensive services, like municipal airports (which consume valuable county land for their private airstrips)

          How about giving back to the country that gave your grandparents the opportunity to land at Ellis island and try something "radical".

          Like freedom from oppression.

          Most "rich" people are philantropists and they donate to charities of their choosing. If I were elected to an Office, I would make sure that a major portion (25% or more) of their "selected" charities goes to the states (and some to the fed).

          It would encourage states to support their entrepreneurs and provide a federal bonus for achievement.

          There are a so many things that could be fixed so easily... It's shameful that we live in the richest country in the world, yet we bicker about nonsense like "services used".

          Hundreds, if not thousands of human beings gave up their lives defending your right to say what you want. I would hope that you'd respect their memory more suitably by not using your words to be an *****.
          • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Whatever, I don't know where your high regard for the people that provide these services comes from, but obviously you haven't worked in the public sector enough, or you've worked there your entire life. yeah we owe our founders enormous amounts of gratitude, but how that translates into continuing to be forced to feed these beurocratic nightmares we've created at a rate of growth greater than inflation and population doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

            Your 25% of donations to the state idea sounds like a two thumbs up 5star horror flick about getting the least amount of help for the dollar. At least charities can be evaluated and chosen based on their merit, peformance, and cause. Just look at charities vs. FEMA for Katrina. I gave to the salvation army by choice, and to FEMA by force, and we know how that went.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3The rich show more on IRS taxes -- read that as Federal.
        That is not all the tax we pay and the embedded taxes in the stuff we buy and maintain our lives with, is higher on the Middle Class.

        Hey, I will trade with Donald Trump and pay a 60% federal tax, and I promise not to pay for taxes in a country that doesn't just dump Donald Trump out the nearest 1st-class air lock.
      • nalen33, on 08/29/2008, -1/+3Where in God's name did you get that little tidbit of information from? Please explain yourself using logical thought and statistics...and please, reference something that makes your case. I want to know how you possibly believe that rich people pay less percentage-wise than the middle class. You'll realize that what you just stated should probably be #1 on the list that the article refers too as it pertains to income tax in this country.
        Read toconnor's post and check out that website, it will provide a lot of insight.
        • shark72, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5I think I see the disonnect here -- you're thinking "payroll taxes" when there's much more to it than that.

          You (and most people reading this) pay about 6% of your salary into social security. But, I pay considerably less -- somewhere around 3%, solely because I'm paid much more than the typical worker.

          If we take the concession that you and I drive about the same amount and consume the same amount of various items (no matter how rich you are, you'll still use the same amount of toothpaste and toilet paper), you're paying a higher percentage of your income in gas tax and sales tax than I am.

          Sure, being in the 33% tax bracket sucks, but it's mitigated in lots of ways -- not just the 3% savings on FICA that I enjoy and you do not, but dozens of little things, such as the gas tax being a much lower burden on me than somebody with your income.
      • Vodka2389, on 05/12/2008, -3/+13Yeah, everybody knows all rich people are rich because they've been randomly handed money. It's not like they earned anything...
        • SpencerMc, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1Speculative investing != earning. It is gambling.
      • PabloIV, on 05/13/2008, -3/+1Rich people in general pay a lot more taxes than middle class or poor people. We do get a lot of ***** for free though, which is counter intuitive, but that's how it is.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7I will trade my tax burden and money with a rich person complaining about taxes.
      I can then offer to drive them to the airport, where they can board a plane for another country if they don't like it.
    • sh4rkb1t3, on 05/12/2008, -6/+8Uhh, actually the more money you make the HIGHER percentage taxes you pay. It's called income brackets.
      • shark72, on 05/12/2008, -0/+9You're referring to income taxes, which have marginal rates which increase with your income. You're not the only person to be confused by this. What we're discussing is taxes as a whole, and people who are well off tend to get tax breaks (such as the break in Social Security, which I covered earlier). Another example is mortgage interest -- my true housing costs are less than those of a renter, as the interest I pay on my loan is deducted from my income. And, it's important to understand that we're talking about total tax burden as a percentage of income -- mine's a lot less than yours, because the amount I pay in gas tax and sales tax is probably a much smaller percentage of my income than in your case.

        I'm pretty well off, but you don't see me whining about paying too much -- I'm one of the few who admit that, yes, wealthier people do often have a lower overal tax burden than those in lower tax brackets. This sounds counterintuitive to many people (as mentioned, you're not the only person confused by this), but it's true.
        • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1How about property taxes on that nice house?
      • cbergeron, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Well, the brackets need to be adjusted.
      • PawnsOfJoshua, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Who cares about percentages. The point is that poor folks have a right to complain about taxes, and rich folks do not. If paying taxes cuts into your ability to pay for food and utilities, you have a right to complain. If it cuts into the money you spend on luxuries, then you do not. Rich people should pay higher taxes and higher percentages of taxes, because you should return to Uncles Sam an amount of tax dollars reflective of the successes that Uncle Sam has facilitated (i.e. if we lived in a communism, none of you would be any richer than me.)
        • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2That would be fine, if Uncle Sam did my homework for me for 20 years, spent his free time developing new skills while I went out drinking, "networked" for me career wise while I play my 360.... you know what cuts into the ability to buy food more than taxes at low income levels? CableTV, alcohol, tobacco, pyramid schemes, not holding a job. Being poor is a temporary situation that can happen to almost anybody, being perpetually poor, unless disabled, is a choice, and we have more than enough money to help disabled folks out if it wasn't squandered on inappropriate entitlements.
    • Jeepy, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3Well if you want to inflate the amount of money 750k+ income earners use for their cost of living than I'll agree they pay more in taxes. Until there is a special rich person inflation where they pay 85 dollars a gallon for gas and their groceries cost 32 thousand dollars a week they will continue to lose less of their personal wealth to taxes than a lower middle class person. Whether or not its the way it should be rich people are less burdened by the taxes they pay, be it income, SS, or sales.
    • mille716, on 05/13/2008, -1/+6Well, the richest man in the world would disagree with you. If fact, if you're another billionaire and can prove that you pay a higher percentage of taxes than your secretary, he'll give you a ***** million dollars...and no one has taken his million dollars yet. Kinda tells you something.
      http://www.cnbc.com/id/21708265/
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/13/2008, -2/+1tells me he should pay more taxes if that's what he wants to do, and leave the mandating alone.
  • skippyoh, on 05/12/2008, -12/+5Those are true 80% of the time every time.
    • LogicBomB, on 05/12/2008, -4/+1Hey, you saw that movie too. Awesome.

      Idiot...
  • consoneo, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3I just like the article linked to about slight brain damage causing people to be dicks. I think I know a few people that must have landed on their head at some time in the past...
  • Soupasam, on 05/12/2008, -14/+482% of statistics are made up on the spot to make you sound clever..
    • JacobParker, on 05/12/2008, -4/+19Yea, that's been said like 5 times before.
      Shut the ***** up.
      • stevealford, on 05/12/2008, -0/+16Are you sure it was "like 5 times" or did you just make that statistic up on the spot to make yourself sound clever?
      • Soupasam, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6I wonder how often you talk to people like that in the real world? I'm guessing all the time... you do sound pretty damn gangsta..
  • Wargalas, on 05/12/2008, -15/+19655,000 dead in Iraq.
    • borez, on 05/12/2008, -6/+10It gets better...This site is claiming 1,206,950

      http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.h ...
      • Wargalas, on 05/12/2008, -5/+15Oh wonderful. Now liberals will start quoting THAT number. Look, I know that tens of thousands are dead probably. However, just do the math. The war has been going on for about 5 years now = 1825 days. 655,000/1825 = 358 dead every single day from the war. It simply doesn't add up. In fact, CNN did a news story about the morgue workers in Iraq and they have said that at the peak, they were seeing about 2,000 dead a month. That was TOTAL, including natural deaths.

        So even if we take the peak amount of dead at 2,000 per month * 60 months, you have 120,000 dead tops. Simply put, it's a ***** number that the anti-war folks like to use that simply isn't true.
        • borez, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Err that was kinda the whole point of the comment
        • gothicform, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6Because they are Muslim most dead don't go to the morgues. Islam requires that the dead are buried ASAP by their families so if someone gets killed in their own home they don't end up in a morgue. People who end up in the morgues are those who die outside their own locality.
          Secondly in some parts of the country the govt services included morgues ceased to function so there was no way of counting the dead.
          Thirdly in rural areas there are no morgues within easy distance at all.
          Morgue deaths as a result are a gross underestimate - but likely the 358 a day every day on average is an over-estimate. The Iraqi govt says between March 2003 and June 2006, 151,000 Iraqis were killed which shows that the 2,000 is pretty off for each month and that back then it was almost 4,000 a month.
        • mCanada, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6Wow gee thanks, I feel better now that only 120,000 died "tops". It's not quite as bad as the Rwandan genocide!
      • wild, on 05/12/2008, -11/+6Wow...when did 120,000 dead people become no big deal?
        • Wargalas, on 05/12/2008, -2/+10Please pay attention. Not once did I imply that 120k dead was "no big deal". My point is that the numbers that people are quoting is wildly exaggerated.
      • KaiserArny, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2"Opinion Research Business estimated that 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed violently since the US invasion"
        Killed viiolently could even mean all sorts of accidents.
  • RainNIU, on 05/12/2008, -5/+23When I was growing up, my mother told me about the three lies of the world. Big lies, little lies, and statistics.
    • stevealford, on 05/12/2008, -0/+14Your mother was paraphrasing Mark Twain. He said "lies, damned lies, and statistics."
      • Vodka2389, on 05/12/2008, -0/+9How many kinds of plagiarisms are there?
        • GreenLynx, on 05/13/2008, -0/+83 kinds. plagiarisms, damn plagiarisms, and quotes.
        • PyroRaver, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2How many kind of quotes are in this thread?
        • ColdCut, on 05/13/2008, -0/+23 kinds. quotes, damned quotes, and paraphrases.
        • geoboy, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1How many licks does it take to get to the center of a... aww ***** it.
      • byrdgang, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1No, that quote is frequently attributed to Mark Twain or Benjamin Disraeli.
  • mrogi, on 05/12/2008, -15/+390% of all statistical quotes are *****.
    • JacobParker, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Shut the ***** up.
    • directedition, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1490% of diggers are sick of this comment popping up over and over.
  • krsone2424, on 05/12/2008, -1/+156I'm having trouble typing this comment because I can't stop thinking about sex
    • JacobParker, on 05/12/2008, -0/+25Letter orgy.
    • BeforeSputnik, on 05/12/2008, -1/+28"his brain just turns into a spinning kaleidoscope of titty"
      What fantastic imagery.
    • ryan83189, on 05/12/2008, -1/+22just use the other 90% of your brain to think about sex.
    • Vodka2389, on 05/12/2008, -1/+12Yeah I'm also having troub pussy ***** orgy blowjob anal missionary doggy style 69
      • dynelol, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2and boobs...i just wanna say that again. boobs!
  • zongamin, on 05/12/2008, -34/+1There a lot of diggers who user 'perCUNTages' to prove their idiotic points.
  • Aquabat, on 05/12/2008, -11/+6They've done studies, you know. Sixty percent of the time, it works every time.
    • ronaldinho, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Have they done studies on those studies?
  • zadadka, on 05/12/2008, -14/+6There's lies, damned lies, politician's lies, Bush's lies.....and statistics.
    (with apologies to Mark Twain)
  • pat25fire, on 05/12/2008, -1/+21"So the part of your brain you're using to read this article is not the same part you'll be using tonight when you get drunk and fight a hobo."

    Hobo fight here I come!
    • YamiJim, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2Bum Fights was a great ***** movie.
    • InfinitySnatch, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3~Singing songs 'bout the hobo life, stabbing folks with my HOBO KNIFE~
  • gelato822, on 05/12/2008, -6/+1cramp of death
  • juggalofr33k, on 05/12/2008, -5/+7Santa makes Baby Jesus cry and me suicidal.
    • JacobParker, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Your face makes Baby Jesus cry and everyone else suicidal.
  • benbutterworth, on 05/12/2008, -17/+4I smell a cow's arse... My knob is only 4 inches, but some ladies don't like it that wide.
  • mrsanon, on 05/12/2008, -6/+0"How about when you were reading the spider-eating segment moments ago? Were you imaging a massive spider-orgy?"
    rofl
  • KayDex86, on 05/12/2008, -8/+2"Where you imaging a mass spider orgy?"

    OH COME ON!!! >:-|
    *glug glug glug*
  • gatorchels, on 05/12/2008, -10/+5The swimming one is actually true in some sense. Your heart pumps more blood to your digestive system after you've eaten to help with the process, so when you try and exercise rigorously right after eating, your heart has to begin pumping blood to your muscles as well, leaving less ample blood supply for your digestive tract. Thus, it is very plausible that you'll get a cramp.

    ...or so I've been taught.
    • spikehay271, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Except that isn't true, as they explain right in the article. The extra blood the GI system uses ain't much.
    • ivosilva, on 05/12/2008, -4/+2What I've been told is that water isn't the issue. It's the temperature shock that can cause your diggestion to stop...
    • shyner, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3I don't know why you're getting Dugg down. You're at least partially right. If you do 'vigorous' swimming you're going to activate your sympathetic nervous system, which in turn deactivates your parasympathetic nervous system. This DOES cause less blood to go to the digestive tract, and slows down digestion. Essentially food will sit in your colon longer.

      Look it up, and don't just believe science you read on a ***** Cracked article.
    • Linzee82, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2We call it BS because many people try to say if you even get in the water, you will cramp. It's the same thing if you were try to run a marathon after eating. Just going in the pool won't do anything, just like taking a slow walk after you eat won't do anything. Just make sure you wait before you start your laps in preparation for the Olympics.
  • gencha, on 05/12/2008, -12/+6You can write "*****", you're mom won't hear it.
  • dafragsta, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Can we get confirmation on the swimming after eating thing. That's probably a few weeks of my childhood right there.
    • shyner, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3If you do 'vigorous' swimming you're going to activate your sympathetic nervous system, which in turn deactivates your parasympathetic nervous system. This DOES cause less blood to go to the digestive tract, and slows down digestion. Essentially food will sit in your colon longer. I won't bore you with why this happens.

      Look it up, and don't just believe science you read on a ***** Cracked article.
      • Linzee82, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3The '***** Cracked article' pointed this out.
        "Granted, if you were to swim rigorously for exercise, you wouldn't want to jump in the pool and start swimming lines right after a big bowl of Chili..."
        Don't let your hatred of Cracked.com get in the way of you reading the article.
  • PawnsOfJoshua, on 05/12/2008, -4/+59The reason people believe utterly false statements is because our education system teaches them to memorize facts so that they can quote them on an exam, rather than teaching people to think critically and understand what makes it a fact to begin with. However, this is unlikely to change, since this is exactly what the elitist sector wants - a flock of sheep who will defend the most absurd notion to the death simply because they heard it on telencyclopediavision.
    • Envark, on 05/12/2008, -1/+21I agreed with the first sentence of your post.
      However, your second sentence set off an alarm in the critical thinking portion of my brain.
      • slodojo, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1Best comment ever? BEST COMMENT EVER!
    • andrewthrice, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Well said. Some people just defend things they know are probably wrong just for the sake of winning an argument and feeling good about themselves. I once told my sister that A.D. did not mean "after death" and she just shook her head as if I were an idiot. I don't care about winning arguments; I just want the truth. Stubbornness and dogmatism are weaknesses.
    • Vodka2389, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1I disagree with the conspiracy theory part. Education system sucks because it's public. No one in the government really cares.
      • liquidpele, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0Actually, it's a bit different... I have a lot of teachers in my family, basically the Feds try to push policies on a national level to make themselves look good, like they care about education, when really it's a state and local thing. But everyone these days wants the Fed to fix their problems. It's like we completely forgot our state governments have responsibility too. So the Fed gets a lot of ***** about bad education in the country, and tries to do something, anything, about it. But since it's such a large country, it's really impossible to push any one program down and have it be successful, so you end up with *****. :(
  • Vulphaestion, on 05/12/2008, -3/+12"Think about sex. Go ahead. Right now."

    Alright. Though I do find big black women very sexy.
    • ronaldinho, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Ah, so it IS true that there are people that jack off on Queen Latifah......
      • shark72, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6ON her?
      • dynelol, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1How does that obese annoying ***** keep being in movies? I hated that she was in Beerfest.
  • RedShrek, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8Please can anyone post the article on here? The Firewall Nazi's at my job blocked cracked.com.
    • KayDex86, on 05/12/2008, -1/+18Every once in awhile, you'll hear a statistic so striking you can hardly believe it's true. Our first impulse is to repeat it, because knowing interesting things tends to make people like us better.

      Unfortunately, some people are so desperate for interesting facts to quote, that they'll just pull them right out of their ass. Then those facts get repeated, by--you guessed it--people like us.

      The six most quoted "too awesome to be true" stats that, in fact, are ...
      #6.
      You Accidentally Swallow About 8 Spiders a Year

      This extremely commonly believed statistic has been fed to us by countless internet chain mails, and probably by some know-it-all kid who sat next to you in some class or other. When you sleep, you open your mouth to breath (and drool on your pillow), and supposedly this is the ideal window of oppurtunity for all the spiders who hang out near your bed hoping to be eaten alive.

      Why Is It a Load of Crap?

      Well, first of all, this a real kick in the crotch of the intellect of spiders everywhere. Although spiders are occasionally seen doing stupid things, it's safe to assume they have enough wit to realize when they're about to crawl through the mouth of a damned giant. If the giant white teeth aren't enough to deter them from going spelunking down your dark, wet throat (apparently no other animals have these) you'd think the heavy draft and deafening snoring sounds would be some sort of indication of how terrible a home your mouth would be.

      Who Started It?

      Back in 1993, people were already getting fooled by online urban legends at an amusing rate. So, a columnist for PC Professional named Lisa Holst decided to prove that you could make up anything on the internet and people would believe it.

      She did this by making up a set of facts that were utterly ridiculous, the spider myth among them (which itself was taken from a collection of insect folklore that dates back to the 1950s), and unleashing it on the world in the form of emails.

      In a twist of oh-so-predictable irony, people who forwarded chain mail about this just "happened" to forget to include the fact that these were completely fake.

      Who Was Fooled?

      Ask a group of internet strangers and you'll find at least a handful of people who wholeheartedly believe this myth. Presumably because they read it somewhere. You've even got this supposed entomologist from Experts.com quoting it.

      In 2006 The UK's Daily Mirror warned that "the average person will swallow anything from eight to 20 spiders before they die."

      Not satisfied to go along with the normal fudged data, The Mirror upped the ante of retardation by adding "A spider is also likely to drink from your eye at least THREE times in your life. Some experts have suggested they are attracted by the vibrations of snoring and the smell of undigested food - a good reason to floss your teeth before bedtime."

      Really, is that what it takes to get the UK to worry about dental hygiene?
      #5.
      You Only Use 10% of Your Brain

      You've heard it since you were a child, and it might have even crept into one of your textbooks: "We only use 10% of our brain! Just think what we'd be capable of if we could tap into the rest!"

      The idea that the brain has UNLIMITED POTENTIAL is probably pretty appealing to 2nd grade teachers whose students complain that they can't do ONE MORE math problem. We still remember our teachers happily informing us that we're only using 10% of our brains, so we could do ten more if we wanted. The implication was of course that if we worked hard enough, we'd be able to set fire to the school with the power of our minds.

      Why Is It a Load of Crap?

      How fast are you reading this article? Well, let's suppose you are only using 10% of your brain. Now, read it 10x faster. Go, do it now! Are you having trouble? Yeah, that's because you can't devote that other 90% to just whatever you want. The parts of the brain are specialized, so trying to use all of it at once isn't going to make you any smarter. That would be like trying to become a better writer by striving to use all the keys on your keyboard in every sentence.

      So the part of your brain you're using to read this article is not the same part you'll be using tonight when you get drunk and fight a hobo. There's even a special part of the brain that apparently keeps you from turning into a dick (No, really).

      Who Started It?

      There is a bit of debate on who exactly brought this ***** statistic into the world. A series of neurologists over the past few hundred years figured out that a human can survive when parts of the brain are removed. Over time, this was misinterpreted to mean that the brain uses little of its potential, and thus the 10% statistic was born.

      Facts tend to survive based on how interesting they are, rather than whether or not they're true.

      Who Was Fooled?

      Surely nobody takes this seriously any more, not when a ten-second Google search can tell you otherwise, right? Well don't tell that to Psychology Today, who ran that helpful 2006 article on how to access the lazy 90% of your grey matter.

      One of their tips is to replenish the brain with nutrients, but we're assuming we get plenty with all the spiders we've eaten.
      #4.
      Men Think About Sex Every Seven Seconds

      As we all know, men do nothing all day but think about having sex with their girlfriend/ex-girlfriend/friend that happens to be a girl/friend's sister. It should come naturally, then, that, on average, men think about sex every seven seconds or so, right? I mean, what else are men going to think about? Their jobs?

      "Puhleaze, sister. We all know what's going on in there."

      Why Is It a Load of Crap?

      Let's suppose for a moment that you are a man. Have you thought about sex since you began reading this article? Well, probably, yes, because you just read the word "sex" several times. How about when you were reading the spider-eating segment moments ago? Were you imaging a massive spider-orgy? If so, you are unlike most men in the world. As a matter of fact, many experts estimate that 30% of men don't think about sex during the day at all. There are variants of this myth, usually ranging from 3 seconds to 20 seconds, but none of them are based on any actual research, and none of them are really true.

      After all, how would they even arrive at such a number? Hook electrodes up to a dude's head and have him walk around for a week, counting how many times the sex lobe lights up?

      Who Started It?

      The origins of this statistic stretch long and far (no "that's what she said" intended), so again we can't pin it on a single person. We all know who it really was, though. A group of wives sitting at a table drinking tea or coffee, start talking about their horrible husbands. They just hate how it is always about sex sex sex sex sex. So, one of them pulls a number out of her head for a joke. "Did you know that men think about sex every seven seconds?"

      The others have a good, womanly laugh about their husbands, and then they all run off to do womanly things, like quilting, or going to the bathroom at the same time. That's what women do, right? We don't really know.

      Who Was Fooled?

      Well, about half of us, according to this online poll. Countless sites are still including it among their "interesting facts" about sex, like this one and this one over here.

      It seems like common sense would have squashed this one even before it got started. Obviously there are long stretches where a guy isn't thinking about sex (say, while spending 45 infuriating minutes on the phone with Microsoft tech support). To make up that average later he would have to think about sex every, what 2 seconds? So for the rest of the day his brain just turns into a spinning kaleidoscope of titty?

      #3.
      Spousal Abuse Skyrockets on Super Bowl Sunday

      Surely watching the manliest of sports play out on the world stage brings out the redneck in all of us. It isn't too hard to imagine that a ***** husband or boyfriend might do something like this on Superbowl Sunday.

      "Woman! Get me a beer! *smack*"

      "Woman! Turn up the TV! I'm watching the Supabowl! *smack*"

      "Woman! I don't wanna see you again for the next 2 hours unless you're nekked! *smack*"

      And who hasn't been to a Super Bowl Party where one of the male guests gets into a fistfight with his wife in front of all their closest friends? What's that you say common sense? Pretty much everybody hasn't been to a party like that?

      Why Is It a Load of Crap?

      The problem with this statistic is that the kind of men who would hit their wives and girlfriends over something on TV are the kind of men who are already doing it anyway.

      In reality, there is no solid evidence that suggests spouses are abused on Super Bowl Sunday, and in fact for some men the distraction of football might actually make them less likely to hit their wives.

      Who Started It?

      This myth reached its peak in 1993, when a series of battered women's advocates came forward claiming abuse hotline calls went up by as much as 40% on the day of the big game. Similar stats got repeated and inflated endlessly in the lead up to the Super Bowl, when every section of the paper is obligated to have a story about the Super Bowl, even if there's absolutely nothing to report. Oh newspapers, how we'll miss your journalistic integrity.

      Who Was Fooled?

      It becamse a big enough deal that NBC aired a public service announcement warning about the dangers of spousal abuse before the game. We hate to think how many abusive husbands, having settled in to watch football, saw the ad and thought, "Hey, that reminds me! I've been so preoccupied with the game that I haven't abused my wife today! Thanks, NBC!"

      #2.
      You Must Wait 30 Minutes After Eating Before Swimming

      If at any time in your life you've had food in your hand near a swimming pool, you've heard this myth. You cannot swim until you've waited at least 30 minutes.

      For some families, the more harsh "hour" rule was used. If you broke the rule, the implication was that you would get cramps, be unable to swim, drown, and die. This rule seemed to apply even if you stayed on the shallow end. According to this statistic, unlike air, water-to-skin contact has magical properties that cause the food in your belly to explode unless it is past a certain point in your digestive track.

      Why Is It a Load of Crap?

      Because you're not a Gremlin. As you may have already guessed, water does not, in fact, bear properties that form a cramp of death, should you get in the water after eating. Getting into the water after eating will have no more effect on your body than going for a walk.

      In fact, the movement of your body in the water, particularly if you are just a little kid with floaties on, is more restricted than that of a typical walk. Granted, if you were to swim rigorously for exercise, you wouldn't want to jump in the pool and start swimming lines right after a big bowl of Chili unless your goal is to chum for some sharks with your mouth.

      Who Started It?

      This one actually comes from an old wives tale that slowly became popular over the years. Supposedly, your stomach is using oxygen to digest food that your muscles need to swim. In actuality, the amount of oxygen your body needs to swim is more than satisfied, whether or not you've eaten recently.

      Who Was Fooled?

      This cutesy little kids site is one of many offering swimming tips that still buys into the old "wait 30 minutes" rule.

      These lies aren't without their consequences. What happens when they find out the 30 minute statistic is false. Doesn't that suggest that the other stuff on the page must be false, too? A horseplay revolution could arise, complete with much more serous acts of rebellions like kids diving in the shallow end, swimming during electrical storms and thinking they could stay under water longer by biting fart bubbles.

      #1.
      Christmas Causes Suicide

      Christmas: A season of joy and togetherness and shopping and joy and shopping. It might be true that Christmas has become really commercialized (as you might have heard from Charlie Brown once or twice), but people generally seem to enjoy it. Aside from the stress, and family you hate, the travel and the junk lying around the house, of course. And the music.

      Actually, when we hear that suicide rates jump during the holidays, it's easy to believe it. Especially if you've ever spent a Christmas drunk and alone, tearing up as you sit in your apartment and watch your favorite Christmas movie from childhood (Die Hard).

      Why Is It a Load of Crap?

      Actually, the suicide rate goes down significantly. Why?

      While it's depressing as hell to be alone on Christmas, the truth is most of us aren't. It's just hard to commit suicide when there's people around constantly trying to get you to wear ugly sweaters. Depressed or not, most people aren't big enough dicks to let the kiddies find them hanging over the Christmas tree with a note pinned to their chest.

      Who Started It?

      In this case, no one fooled us more than ourselves. It's what they call confirmation bias; we decide ahead of time that people should get depressed over the holidays, so when we hear somebody killed themselves on Christmas, we assume the holiday was the reason.

      Never mind that far more people kill themselves on President's day, and most other lesser holidays. Never mind that there could have been a thousand other reasons to be depressed.

      Who Was Fooled?

      The movie Gremlins, for one. A character quotes the suicide stat, which is one of sever
    • KayDex86, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Who Was Fooled?

      The movie Gremlins, for one. A character quotes the suicide stat, which is one of several scientific inaccuracies we noticed in that film (see swimming after eating).

      But also, just about every newspaper in the country tends to climb on board. Studies indicate that newspapers actually emphasize suicides during the holidays over the rest of the year, again assuming a link between the suicide and the holiday when they didn't even know if the victim recognized that it was the holiday at all.

      In the general population, whether or not you believe this stat tends to depend on how much you hate Christmas (see this typical response from a ray of sunshine talking about how it's "no wonder" suicide rates go up that time of year).

      For some reason, when we're miserable we like to project it on other people, and assume they're all miserable too. And, if thinking that other people are suicidal makes you feel a little less suicidal yourself, then go for it.

      ** Please digg these down so as not to annoy everyone - ta ;-) **
      • RedShrek, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Cheers mate.
      • chonuts, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Actually, I dugg it up because this was much easier to read since it was all on one page. So... does that mean I get buried now??
    • stevealford, on 05/12/2008, -1/+0Back to work, you.
    • Envark, on 05/12/2008, -1/+0Use a proxy?
    • rblancarte, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2use a proxy - http://www.f9t.net/
      • chemdiva, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1"The Websense category "Proxy Avoidance" is filtered."
  • spikehay271, on 05/12/2008, -1/+9I thought nobody believed the "no swimming after eating" thing anymore. It ain't true. Here's Snopes and two articles with actual doctors debunking it:

    http://www.snopes.com/oldwives/hourwait.asp
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/health/28real.ht ...
    http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?art ...
    • LokitheComplex, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1But won't eating a big meal then swimming give you indigestion and nausea?
    • lennybird, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Yeah I thought due to swimming/exercising, more blood would be routed (or swell) the muscles you're using, leaving less blood to circulate through the intestines, causing bad digestion.... Too bad I was wrong.
    • shyner, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6If you do 'vigorous' swimming you're going to activate your sympathetic nervous system, which in turn deactivates your parasympathetic nervous system. This DOES cause less blood to go to the digestive tract, and slows down digestion. Essentially food will sit in your colon longer.

      Look it up, and don't just believe science you read on a ***** Cracked article.
      • Rayhush, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4or RTFA where they say that you shouldn't vigorously exercise after eating. But for most kids you're just hanging out in the pool.
        • LokitheComplex, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2But swimming IS vigorous exercise and the headline says swimming.
    • kcirtap6075, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1snopes? really?
  • satanatnmtedu, on 05/12/2008, -0/+30Most of those items are not statistics. They are statements.
  • LokitheComplex, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7If you exercise immediately after eating will you be sick? It just seems natural to avoid it.
    • Antwan718, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3No though if you try and do ab workouts rite after eating as in 10 min or less, you will feel like *****.
    • PawnsOfJoshua, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2It doesn't seem to be a problem for sharks.
  • homah, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6People can come up with statistics to prove anything. Forty percent of all people know that.
  • Bob042, on 05/12/2008, -2/+14Did you know? 42% of all Digg front page articles have been on it before! It's True!
    • LabiaMajora, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1I'd be willing to say its a little higher then that....
  • phunlee, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6I loved the Gremlins movies. That's all. I just love them.
    • dha07030, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4I usually hate unrelated comments but, I have to say this one made me laugh.
  • pennvneff, on 05/12/2008, -3/+5The first thing my statistics professor said to me and my classmates at the beginning of the semester was this, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."

    • Envark, on 05/12/2008, -1/+12Was your statistics professor named, Mark Twain?
    • arrjka, on 05/13/2008, -3/+1It's not a professor if you go to community college.
      • byrdgang, on 05/26/2008, -0/+1Uh, yeah...they are professors. Many of the professors I had at community college had PhDs because of the school's requirements. It's hard to become a professor without a PhD at the community college I went to.
  • diggerphelps, on 05/12/2008, -0/+15They left out "real estate always goes up."
  • lilaliend, on 05/12/2008, -1/+20"So for the rest of the day his brain just turns into a spinning kaleidoscope of titty?"
    • geobay, on 05/12/2008, -0/+13I'm adding a "spinning kaleidoscope of titty" to my Christmas list
      • str1fe, on 05/12/2008, -0/+12Don't kill yourself when you don't get one
      • geoboy, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Your name is too close to mine. Hopefully this confusion will end with me getting the spinning kaleidoscope of titty instead.
    • bicyclethief, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7I'm going to make my own.
  • crzdmnsldy, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I was just telling my hubby the spider one last night. Except I heard it was 8/night.

    *phew*
  • hamobu, on 05/12/2008, -6/+3As a guy I can guarantee that men think about sex every 7 seconds on average.
    • Envark, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7As a telepath, I can guarantee that you're wrong.
    • oinker262, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1i thought it was 30
      or am I not as horny as everyone else says I am
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.