D: "Stereotypings are a bad ideas"

M: "The stupidity of that statement seems self-explanitory."

D: "What are you talking about?"

M: "exactly"

 

Stereotyping is the Gayest Thing You Can Do

oh crap, did I just do it? wait, no...

Stereotype:

1.  You shouldn't use this word. It's very un-PC of you.

2.  Totally NOT COOL thing to say and/or do.

3.  Seriously, this word should be illegal.

4. You're not gonna actually USE this word as though it were a part of the commonly-known english vocabulary and you live in a country with legally-protected freedom of speech, are you? Not cool bro. NOT cool.

Synonyms: idiot, stupid, wrong, unchill

Antonyms: intelligent, smart, responsible, Jesus, chill, bro, awesome

Source: bro dictionary

Stereotype: [...]

Sociology: a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group.[...]    

Synonyms: categorize, type, identify.

Source(s): credible dictionaries

American Psychological Association (APA): stereotype. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 30, 2011, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stereotype

Chicago Manual Style (CMS): stereotype. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stereotype (accessed: September 30, 2011).

Modern Language Association (MLA): "stereotype." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 30 Sep. 2011. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stereotype>.

Instituteof Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE): Dictionary.com, "stereotype," in Dictionary.com Unabridged. Source location: Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stereotype. Available: http://dictionary.reference.com. Accessed: September 30, 2011.

STEREOTYPES ARE OFTEN REAL AND ACCURATE

otherwise they don't fit the definition thereof very closely

Stop saying that Irish people and Native Americans are more susceptible to alcoholism!

TRUTH HURTS MY EARS!

In a study of a Southwestern Native American population, there was also evidence for linkage of alcohol dependence to markers in the ADH region of chromosome 4 (6).

Source: Long, J.C., Knowler, W.C., Hanson, R.L., Robin, R.W., Urbanek, M., Moore, E., Bennett, P.H. and Goldman, D. (1998) Evidence for genetic linkage to alcohol dependence on chromosomes 4 and 11 from and autosome-wide scan in an American Indian population. Am. J. Med. Genet. (Neuropsychiatry Genet.), 81, 216–221.

Ethnicity: Overall, there is no difference in alcoholic prevalence among African Americans, Caucasians, and Hispanic people. Some population groups, however, such as Irish and Native Americans, have an increased incidence in alcoholism while others, such as Jewish and Asian Americans, have a lower risk.

Source: http://www.health24.com/medical/Focus_centres/777-2268-4463-4845,64713.asp

CLICK HERE TO SEE HOW EASILY I PROCURED THIS INFO

CONCLUSIONS: These results are consistent with genetic linkage studies showing protective associations for alcohol dependence and related behavior on chromosome 4 and suggest that ADH2 polymorphisms may account for these findings.

OBJECTIVE: Two alcohol dehydrogenase genes (ADH2 and ADH3 on chromosome 4) and one aldehyde dehydrogenase gene (ALDH2 on chromosome 12) exhibit functional polymorphisms. The goal of this study was to determine whether any associations exist between the ADH2, ADH3, and ALDH2 polymorphisms and alcohol dependence in a group of Native Americans

Source: http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/pm/9775978.html?nr=3&pmid=12505800 Wall TL, Carr LG, Ehlers CL Department of Neuropharmacology, Scripps Research Institute, San Diego, CA, USA. twall@ucsd.edu

George Vaillant, studying inner-city ethnic men in Boston over a 40-year period, found that Irish-Americans were 7 times as likely to develop alcohol dependence as Italian-Americans--this despite the Irish-Americans having a substantially higher abstinence rate. Vaillant, G.E., The Natural History of Alcoholism, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983.

(Source)

FORTY-YEAR-STUDY

Proper Stereotyping is Derived from the Scientific Method

when CATEGORIZING why not strive for ACCURACY?

Now, notice how I used my current knowledge of the SCIENCE of alcoholism and genealogy to determine this? you could easily google "native american irish alcoholism myth" and get lots of information that attempts to prove otherwise. Or you could google this, and get the same level of "proof". But, how comprehensive is it? is it based on verifiable science, or, opinion? anyone can just make something up and post it on the internet! (example)

Dutch People Tend to be Taller

as opposed to "dutch people are always tall"

Dutch Hotel Room Issue

Info. on Dutch heigh

When people say that "[all]dutch people are tall" that's not stereotyping, that's just being WRONG. (Is there someone in the Netherlands that could be considered verifiably "short"? of course there is.) The person that made that statement is using the english language in a way that is inaccurate. you could say that I am "nit picking" but since a sentence is composed of words and only words, nit picking words is all you CAN do... to something that is only made OF WORDS. Since the brackets were used to show implication not spoken ([all]dutch people are tall), the omission of the quantity of dutch that are considered verifiably "tall" was not stated, "all" is the assumed word. Using the wrong word can EASILY change the WHOLE MESSAGE. Also, the word "some" is not close to the word "all".

SOME people have desirable jobs that they love.

vs.

ALL people have desirable jobs that they love.

Notice how EXTREMELY different these two statements are? In this case... it's obvious; however, it's still the same concept at work: changing a quantity word that TOTALLY ruins an otherwise accurate wording. Switching JUST ONE WORD in a sentence can and--most likely--WILL change its meaning. Let's take it one step further on the ridiculous scale.

"my husband is a great person"

vs.

"my animal is a great person"

Homo Sapiens Sapiens (people) are classified under the kingdom of animals. So, the latter statement is accurate... but it sounds awkward, bizarre, and lacks real communicative value; because, whomever you are talking to is going to have NO IDEA what you are talking about or will become confuse: even though both sentences are accurate.

They might even think you are talking about a dog, or something along those lines, because USUALLY people refer to so-called "lesser" (cognitively speaking?) creatures as "animals" and not humans... even though most people--in my experiences--know that the scientific classification of a human is animal (animalae). Last time I checked, humans don't grow on trees or the ground like moss nor do they have roots in the ground like most plants.

ACCURATE: "That person is tall. They may very well be of dutch origin. Let's go ask them to find out." INACCURATE: "Look at that tall person. That means they are dutch."

Claiming that someone stating that Native Americans are more likely to become alcoholics and that they have a higher prevalence of alcohol dependence than other ethnic backgrounds is racist may be true. The person that said that may ALSO be racist... but not because of their understanding of the common Native-American genetic-makeup and how it interacts with alcohol. Maybe they just don't like darker-skinned folks. Such as myself: it's quite possible, but not necessarily RELATED TO their understanding of gene polymorphisms within ethnic groups and how it correlates to alcohol dependence.

If reading the research plus a little observation of ethnic groups and being honest with your findings makes you racist... then I guess I'm racist. Against myself. Because I AM NATIVE AMERICAN... AND Irish.

I guess I'm racist against those of my own ancestral background somehow, because I have a basic comprehension of how science and genotypic dynamic interplays... mixed with a little common-sense, google.com, and experience drinking with numerous Irish and Native American people, then, REMEMBERING HOW COMMON IT WAS FOR THEM TO TELL ME THAT THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES ALCOHOLICS AND ATTEND AA MEETINGS AS ORDERED BY A JUDGE IN A COURT OF LAW; THEN, WATCHING THEM GET HAMMERED, IN FRONT OF MY VERY OWN EYES.

Pragmatism

Just because it can be politically "correct" to avoid a certain type of thing doesn't mean there is real reasoning behind it that will benefit either society as a whole, or the practicing individual in question. All that it means is that a bunch of people want you to act a certain way. And, what are the odds that SAID GROUP might have something to gain from YOUR adherence to THEIR ideals? probably close to 100%.

To purposefully avoid categorizing and readily identifying others is akin to imposing willful social ignorance upon one's self. (Remember, categorizing and identification are SYNONYMOUS with stereotyping.)

The next time someone says you are "stereotyping" will you say "thank you"?

D: "Ok, so this one is pretty straight-forward... I mean, they ARE the experts though.

M: "And expertise means what if they are wrong?

D: "Well, nothing I guess...

M: "Exactly. So, why would you allow anybody else power over your mind; especially when history and common sense tells us that when given power, it's quickly, easily and commonly abused.

D: "I guess I was just 'taking their word for it'"

M: "Why?

D: "Um... Uh... because they told me to?

M: "Oh how much learning you have to do, my friend...

Everybody has a Something "wrong" with Them...Except the People that are Saying it, of Course!

They're special! Immune to logic, reasoning, and human-error! Every last one! Just ask them!

Experts are no longer humans... especially if they have a piece of paper that says they are one!

"paper + ink = reality", right? hey, wait a second...

So, what do you do if you want everyone to believe everything you say every time? get a degree! that's how! If I had a dollar for every time I heard a person with a degree in something make an easily-verified, inaccurate statement about the very subject they had supposed "expertise" in, I would probably have a 100-dollar bill. I'm being quite literal. Possibly even more.

it's all about 'em baby...

This was ESPECIALLY tough whenever I would read most of the subject book in High School and then, when the teacher said something wrong... I would quote the book, then name the page and turn to the page and read it aloud. Along with the rest of the class... Needless to say, a lot of the "teachers" didn't like me much... especially in Oklahoma. I don't think this warrants further explaination...

Especially the female teachers... they liked to pretend as though their personal opinion about something was irrefutable fact... until I refuted it. And, being vengeful and catty... didn't always go so well.

But, I passed... with a decent GPA (~3.5... not bad) and ACT score(~25... not bad). I had letters from Ivy-league colleges in the mail weekly after taking that test... doesn't mean that much, but, says something, I would guess.

this is more realistic and less satirical than you might think... seriously... I was raised there...

 Why do they get degrees?

Probably because they are selfish and power-hungry... and they want an easy, do-nothing paycheck... for life.

Telling people what to do is fun, right? addictive? oh yeah. And it has nothing to do with science or progress of humanity whatsoever. Yet, people without even the slightest bit of proof beyond that they could darken the right circles at the right times with a #2 pencil, get old copies of a test, or distract the TA while people would slip out of class/steal the test get degrees. (people ACTUALLY did that at Oklahoma State during Algebra class... while I was watching).

sneaky sneaky...

A Terrifying Situation 

Riddle-me-this, blog reader... 

Imagine this person.

But imagine he/she had a buddy that stole the answers to the test, memorized the first 50 answers, then wrote the last 50 on the inside of his/her cuff of his shirt sleeve. Or just wrote them all on the inside of a plastic, coke-bottle label, then re-glued the label and after the test started drank all the coke to reveal the answers... you get the idea.

pumpkin eater... 

Then, he/she did this all the way through college. And now he/she's your boss. He/she's the "HR director" at your job because he/she has a master's degree in psychology.

That took me about all-of 45 seconds to think up... it's not that hard to pose these horrendous, hypothetical situations. And say he/she just took out a bunch of student loans, got his/her degree, then moved to Africa. Debt laws don't always transfer internationally.

They did nothing for their education: no work, no learning... nothing. But he/she's now an "expert". And they might be your boss. Nice.

this woman has a real degree from a real college...she is an "expert" on communication & journalism... even though she tried to ban some books from a library then fired the librarian when she wouldn't do it

what a wonderful way to facilitate "communication"... by banning it's written form; writing can also be known as "journaling"; it's practice being "journalism"

"C's get degrees"
the new-age collegiate mantra

Just because you have a degree doesn't mean that you have sharp reasoning skills... it doesn't mean that you can prove efficacy at the practical applications thereof... it doesn't even prove you aren't mentally retarded. It just means that you gave money to people and jumped through their hoops

The next time an "expert" tells you something, ask them how highly-accredited their institution was, which problems they missed on each exam, and, then ask them if it's possible that the very issue being discussed is potentially A QUESTION THAT THEY GOT WRONG ON A TEST but they got enough of the easy ones right to make up for it and passed... maybe even got an "A".

put that in your pipe and smoke it 

Pragmatism

When someone claims expertise at something, it's showing you that they believe they have something to "prove". And they don't have the discipline to do it on their own. They are either too lazy or have a fear of failure... or maybe they just don't care. How many people do you know that are ACTUALLY good at something yet still feel the need to get a piece of paper that attempts to prove their self-evident aptitude? Probably not many.

If the experts were really experts their results would speak for themsleves. Next time someone attempts to present to you their "expertise" ask for REAL-WORLD RESULTS as proof. It will prove to give you far better results (although it may make finding a REAL expert nigh-impossible if you live in a western culture; or a red state... oh geez. don't even get me started there.)

So, next time someone that is an "expert" says something that is obviously BS, will you call them on it? What alternative ways might you use other than ones mentioned here?

D: "Sure it is! the constitution says we can!"

M: "there is a difference beteween "can" and "should", I promise."

D: "Well, I know that... but it makes me feel good! and it's easy!"

M: "Therein lies two of the main issues... and a BONUS third issue!"

Jail is Probably not Very Much Fun

Seems obvious, right? I mean... who wants to go to jail, right? I won't break the law just because lots of other people around me are. Oh wait, except you probably will.

group think + fear of rejection = conforming to current group behavior

Even if that group is currently doing something illegal... say, blocking a highway.These things are hard-wired into you... meaning, there isn't too much that can be done about it, even if you're Bruce Lee or have the masterful self-control of a Buddhist monk. Guess what? both of these types are/were still humans.

It it physically possible? of course. Is it likely? no way. So, if you are the gambling type, and like to take the bad odds... on purpose... that often lead to fines and jailtime... picket away!

Guys, I think this is a BAHH BAHHD idea!

Just shut up and do it? Well, when you put it that way...

Angry Attitudes are met with Equal Anger

Guess what? picketing doesn't work in a very nice way... it's negative reinforcement.

It's like saying:

"you better do what we want... or else!"

Should the 1st grader do that to the school-yard bully that is a 5th-grader and has 50 lbs heavier and 5 inches taller than said 1st grader? Well, that's not too hard to figure out.

If you try to fight ones with the most power of control with what you have...

They'll use what they have.

If you try to bully them... they bully back. Seems simple enough.

But, guess what? They'll probably win.

BRINK IT ON US GOV!

Not only that, but you're obviously taking time away from being productive in an alternative way... like, raising funds to help get animals off of the streets instead of just picketing a bill that blocked funding.

Oh, is that too hard? Well, maybe then the hard work, long hours, and dedication that got the politicians and other various into their positions to begin with is maybe a factor in why they are allowed to make the decisions they do, and why they are taken seriously?

You get out of life what you put in.

Another wunna dern bad-type laws?

Better go git muh picketin' sahn...

Guess what? if you live in the country you have an issue with and you can leave... then leave.

But if you want to stay, have the laws you want and get rid of the ones you don't want... try positive reinforcement because it's proven to be a LOT more effective for change.

How do politicians that win campaign?

Do they say:

"I promise that if elected, I will make it legal to punch the last guy in the face that held this position because nobodhy likes him!"

- OR -

Maybe they say:

"Ok, so maybe the last guy didn't do the best possible job, but... I'll do what I can! Let's make things better this time!"

Think about it for a second.

negativity is... um... a negative quality?

If You Poke a Sleeping Bear With a  Stick...

First and foremost: there are tons and tons of laws, local/bylaws, state laws, and federal laws that get overlooked constantly. They choose to do that... when you aren't seen as a threat to order (yelling while holding a sign)

Does a cop pull over every person he sees make an illegal lane change? of course not. But what if you give them a REASON to? Well, the cop won't be a nice guy anymore and will enforce the law that he already had the right to do in the first place.

Be careful who you mess with...

Because you are holding a sign doesn't make you immune to laws--trust me.

Pragmatism

Just because the law allows something doesn't mean it's going to be the best idea. If everyone else does it, then, it's probably NOT the best idea. If the best idea was what everyone else does, then there would be no way to excell or stand out with extraordinary results and behaviors!

Do people that make a positive impact tend to lazily take the easy way out and do what everyone else does, or do they make their own tracks by taking the high road?

Gandhi, MLK, all the rest... trust me, they did a LOT more than hold a sign and scream for a few hours and make it hard for people to get in and out of their current place of business.

So, the next time someone asks you to come "peacefully protest" with them... will you think twice before a possibly bad decision is made?

D: "But, eating disorders are terrible!"

M: "How so?"

D: "Well, ever seen anorexia and bulimea!?"

M: "No, but I have seen the results of: malnutrition and forcing yourself to vomit. That is called a 'non seqitur'': in this case a person is attributing the cause of suffering not from the results of mesurable, observable fact but from a 'label' given by an 'expert'. Trust me, there are no 'bulemia/annorexia nervosa' receptors in the body. Wouldn't it be easy to assume the message is putting across: 'not eating enough is bad; therefore, eating too much is good! So go buy a McDonald's hamburger!? (remember this for the rest of your life--if you live in a Capitalist society)

D: "Yeah, but that doesn't happen!"

M: "I think the obesity rate in the US may very well disagree."

D: "Touché..."

M: "While wrestling in highschool I never had issues with these things regardless of the sometimes over 20 lbs I would lose several times weekly, while being healthy as a horse; probably because I chose to balance my diet and pay attention to my body's basic needs and functions instead of 'the easy way out' of throwing up/starving myself. You get out what you put in: take the 'lazy man's' way of losing weight, you get the 'lazy man's' results. I based mine on raw data, research, and foremost: common sense."

D: "I know, but... in the US, common sense is not so common..."

M: "Yep."

Disorderly Conduct

different ≠ wrong

I was perusing the interwebs recently when I happened across this lovely gem:

Warning: the following link contains astronomical amounts of bullshit that is based solely on opinion and is likely supported by zero--or close to--objective metrics and raw data/datum.

"orthorexia:" the new 'you're actually just fine but we want to propose that you have an issue to be dealt with then use the sales tactic of implying urgency of 'necessary' (see also) treatment to increase the bottom line for our CEO who uses 'experts' to create a system in which questioning the real-world results of  'treatment' is nigh-impossible because of the vagueness and arbitrary nature of the 'disease/disorder' to begin with

Just Because you aren't a married, middle-class, white male with 2.5 children that was raised in the 'burbs with a degree from a prestigious University and go to church every Sunday doesn't mean there is something wrong with you by default.

THE SHOW LEAVE IT TO BEAVER AND THE BRADY BUNCH WERE JUST THAT: ONLY TV SHOWS; NON-ROLE-MODEL BEHAVIOR

I believe quite strongly that the results of the entire "mental health" industry in the US would suddenly, dramatically improve if even just some of said "professionals" and "experts" were legally required to repeat this in the mirror every single day before they go to work. That, and the hippocratic oath. You know, the thing they likely stated before going into practice?

Isn't it interesting that the entire industry fails to recognize that the word 'disorder' and 'disease' are not synonymous... and, the word 'disorder' and 'problem/bad' are also not synonymous.

Guess what, mental health industry!? Different words have different meanings! imagine that!

STOP DOING THAT PLEASE. I WAS EVEN NICE AND SAID PLEASE.

seriously

This is a basic sales tactic... present the "problem" then INSTANTLY move on to the benifits of the "solution" before the person being addressed can evaluate what the "problem" actually was to begin with and merely gets caught up in finding and/or applying the "solution" "therapy" "pharmaceutical" et al.

Well, now that I'm done with the "rocket science" portion... time to move on to the rest!

Why Does it Work Like This?

I hardly even knew where to start on how utterly moronic this was... but then I remembered: the industry isn't fueled by results... wait, what is the purpose of this industry again? oh yeah, this stuff:

17.5% of ALL MONEY in the US in 2010 went to the "health industry" and is projected to INCREASE TO 20%

Roughly the US ranks #1 _GLOBALLY_ in mental disorders.

Guess what? it's speculated that less than half of them get treated... and we STILL SPEND MORE THAN OTHER COUNTRIES ON MEDICAL CARE. (source)

"oh crap! my computer has a virus!"

computer:[virus detected]

"whew, good thing my computer found it!"

"why is the only website I can go to the SAME antivirus ad?"

computer: [only one possible solution found... IF YOU ACT NOW: ONLY 30USD!]

"wait... the ONLY one that can fix the issue? WTF?"

This is a perfect example of monopolizing/creating both the "problem" AND the "solution". Oldest trick in the book.

I've talked about this ever since I was young:

M: "the reason doctors charge so much is because if you don't get their treatment, you die; so you have to pay it."

D: O_O

Circa 1996

I remember saying that to so many adults and remembering that the look on their faces were PRICELESS. The ol' "holy shit he just summed up an entire industry's greed in about 10 seconds... did a 10-year-old boy really just point out one of the main flaws of a poorly-regulated industry in the US?" look. Gets me every time.

yes, indeed... leveraging the fear of death is quite lucrative.

remember kids $$ = eternal life!

The Main Fallacous Concepts at Work:

1. The title ALONE is a contradiction of terms; the theme does seem to be continued throughout the article: If you eat healthily it can't be considered healthy if it's harmful. IF SOMETHING IS HARMFUL OR CAUSES DISEASE THEN IT CAN NO LONGER BE LABELED "HEALTHY".  At a certain point if it starts being "harmful" it stops being "healthy" eating... It's just a story of people attempting to eat healthily but failing to do so. So what is likely going on here: some people are harming themselves by trying to eat healthy and not doing a good job. So, trying to do something but not being good at it can produce bad results? NO WAY! I've NEVER heard of such a thing! (biting sarcasm)
2. "they may be depressed or have low self-esteem" Indeed. They may also be named steve. Or Susan. Any more awesome information to add, Dr. Stupid? correlation ≠ causation. Way to fail at the fundamentals of science.

smart man, this one

PRAGMATISM

The pragmatism to be taken away from this concept is pretty simple:

If you have a "need" that someone says you have, yet, isn't self-evident, or THEY "realized" you had a "problem" before YOU did... they're probably making shit up to profit personally.

So, what bullshit would you have not fallen for in the past, having this in mind?

D: "Ok, that doesn't even sound like a plant..."

M: "Well, the plant's name is Huperzia Serrata"

D: "Ok, that sounds more like a plant... but what is 'Huperzine A'?"

M: "It's an extract, and it's pretty awesome."

D: "Why so?"

M: "It does a bunch of cool things..."

An extract of Huperzia Serrata: Huperzine A; Good Stuff

Eating green pipe-cleaners CAN and WILL make you smarter*

*that was a lie

Huperzia Serrata is another plant from the Indian subcontinent and is spread eastward to parts of Asia as well.

It's also known as "club moss".

Is it just me, or does it seem like so many "herbal remedies" come out of India?

Or, many things that aren't "spiritually related" and/or brute force stuff like what we like here in the US?

This has nothing to do with the "moss girls" of club "XS" in Vegas... even though I wish it did

*content of statement may or not be true regardless of how awesome the Russian accent you heard it in your head when you read it

D: "Ginkgo has been out for a long time, though..."

M: "What do you mean, 'out'?"

D: "Like, you know, lots of people know about it."

M: "Well yeah... it's ancient. But why wouldn't that make it good for you?"

D: "I dono.. I figre people would have caught on by now."

M: "How do you know they haven't and you just never got the news?"

D: "Good point..."

Ginkgo Biloba... What Does it do? Anything Good?

If they can live to be over 1,000 years old... it's probably doing SOMETHING right in biology...

Ginkgo Biloba is a very well known herb amongst the general populous. it's been around for quite a while in ancient chinese medicine--even thought to be verging on extinction for a while--so, if it's been around that long... why doesn't everyone use it if it's so great?

Good question. If exercising is so great, why doesn't everyone work out? If McDonald's is so bad for you... why does anyone ever eat there? See, just because people don't do something doesn't mean it's bad...

This is called an "argumentum ad populum"

(doesn't stuff in latin sound so much more profound than boring ol' English?)

This is one of the most common-place arguments for everything in areas where people are allergic to reading, facts, and basic research skills... *cough* America *cough* (a very persuasive argument in my favor)

Often times they are just naïve to the info... or--unfortunately commonly--they are apathetic about the whole issue[don't even care].

D: "But, everyone knows that herbs are just like homeopathy... doesn't work!"

M: "Well, homeopathy works in the placebo sense... but, some herbs are proven to work rather well!"

D: "Oh yeah? which ones. I still don't believe you!"

M: "Listen up..."

Bacopa Monnieri: "herb of the gods" or Voodoo/snake oil?

Is Bacopa Monnieri--also kown as "Brahmi" (god in Hindi) because of it's ability to get you closer to "god consciousness"...neat religion, but, that's a different post for a different day--really effective medicine as Indian Ayurveda states?

Or, is it just the next snake oil schemed up by someone that likely participates in MLM's and/or

take an hour of your day to "talk about Jesus"?