Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: MitCoffey@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: wwww
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 02:37:35 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 174
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <a766a589.0402031838.318e2aa9@posting.google.com>
References: <a766a589.0401261129.4516665d@posting.google.com> <517d5df8.0401311452.4845f5f4@posting.google.com> <bvicq9$232$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl> <892cb437.0402010651.5b31f70f@posting.google.com> <bvje91$lk8$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <892cb437.0402020645.66f5141b@posting.google.com> <bvm0kb$5lk$0@pita.alt.net> <pan.2004.02.02.18.22.02.915622@terralink.net> <cf0u10d4ggmkca72vrq0g5semal1lhe465@4ax.com> <bvnrij$rv4$0@pita.alt.net> <pan.2004.02.03.23.22.39.469703@terralink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1075862255 5470 128.100.83.246 (4 Feb 2004 02:37:35 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 02:37:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.59.168.242
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2153
"Daniel Harper" <daniel_harper@terralink.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.02.03.23.22.39.469703@terralink.net>...
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:01:22 +0000, Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> >
> > Uzytkownik "Lady Veteran" <armyvet@jeepweb.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> > news:cf0u10d4ggmkca72vrq0g5semal1lhe465@4ax.com...
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:12:41 +0000 (UTC), "Daniel Harper"
> >> <daniel_harper@terralink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 17:15:30 +0000, Uncle Davey wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > I think the problem is with some of the studies you have given is
> >> >>> > that
> they
> >> >>> > are biassed because obese people write them.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Uncle Davey
> >> >>>
> >> >>> My word! Isn't it easy to dismiss evidence that contradicts your
> >> >>> view! Thanks for the laugh.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> RF
> >> >>>
> >> >>> PS You're not exactly persuading me by the force of your argument
> >> >>> and evidence.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >> People sometimes cite the examples of Cretan fertility goddess
> >> >> figurines, which are broad hipped, but what they fail to focus on is
> >> >> that invariably these ancient models have a high hip to waist ratio.
> >> >> The hips are broad to accentaute the slim waist.
> >> >>
> >> >> Fat women do not have a high hip to waist ratio, they can have pretty
> >> >> much an identical measurement at breast waist and hips, and this is
> >> >> not a visual symbol which ever triggered a sexual response in typical
> >> >> men.
> >> >>
> >> >> Uncle Davey
> >> >
> >> >I can't believe you're even trying to have this discussion.
> >>
> >> He will try. He has to have something to elevate himself over us
> >> ordinary human beings. He isn't a new idiot-he is old one who gets his
> >> jollies by putting down fat women. He can't just leave them alone. He
> >> has to actually try to hurt them. He hasn't succeeded but he tries,
> >> nevertheless.
> >>
> >>
> > I don't hurt them, they hurt themselves. I don't push the food down their
> > throats. You encourage them to do that. You hurt them.
> >
> > I'm telling the truth, and if the truth hurts, then that's not a reason
> > for not saying it.
> >
>
> You are being deliberately insulting, and not helpful at all. Obesity is
> often genetic, and even when it's not, certain eating disorders seem to be
> caused by mental disorders rather than lack of personal willpower. You
> denigrate because you do not understand and have a religious agenda to
> push onto those who already have problems of their own. I shudder to think
> that you and I are both identified with the same religious beliefs.
>
> >
> >> > You have
> >> >access to the _Internet_; can there be any better proof that people
> >> >have different standards of beauty and different types of sexual desire
> >> >than you do? While we can generalize all day about the various types of
> >> >body types that are more "attractive" in an aggregate sense, the truth
> >> >is that sexual attraction is a purely local phenomenon between
> >> >individuals, and that what Joe Blow and Jane Smith find attractive
> >> >about one another on a physical level may or may not have anything to
> >> >do with anything you'd notice.
> >>
> >> Personally, I think he just wants to put women down to keep his
> >> perceived sense of superiority. He has a lot of nerve poking his stinky
> >> face in SSFA. He sticks his insults in SSFA and he will get his ass
> >> flamed. Simple. Some people should learn to control their pets.
> >
> > Is 'pets' an abbreviation for 'appetites'? I heartily agree!
> >
> > Bobby, I hope you're following a calorie controlled diet right now.
> >
> >
>
> This from a man who got his ass handed to him in talk.origins over
> massively dishonest behavior and for utterly humiliating remarks towards
> an honest and decent poster who happened to know more about a subject than
> he did. Beams and motes, my friend.
>
> >> >And besides all that, some of us find our mates attractive for things
> >> >like intelligence, wit, sense of humor, willingness to love, a caring
> >> >nature, being good to snuggle with, or putting up with lame
> >> >philsophy/biology puns more so than anything that might be termed
> >> >physical attractiveness. In short, your view of what is attractive is
> >> >so myopic and based on Hollywood beauty that it's hard to see how you
> >> >can even begin to understand reality.
> >> >
> >> >Personally, I like to look at women with some _curves_.
> >>
> >> There are so many idiots in this group (SSFA) that they think their
> >> behavior is normal.
> >>
>
> Piggybacking: I am not a poster on SSFA; I am a regular on talk.origins.
> We get plenty of idiots over here, too.
>
> >> Each person deserves the chance to find that love, fat or not, in spite
> >> of the idiots.
> >>
>
> Piggybacking: I hope that you find it, if you have not found it yet. Sorry
> you have to deal with the immature who lack any sense of social
> responsibility for the people they hurt.
>
> >> LV
> >
> > Sure, and the more work they put into it, the higher they deserve it, and
> > the bigger the chance will be.
> >
> > Allowing yourself to be a shambling shoggoth will not increase your
> > chances, and saying that it will is just pointless.
> >
> > Preaching the acceptance of gluttony is a lie, the same as preaching the
> > acceptance of any other sin is a lie.
> >
>
> You are an asshole, Davey. What's more, you are a fucking asshole. You
> don't have any damn clue about anything that you're talking about. Your
> ignorance precedes you everywhere you go. Your performance art might allow
> you to pass through entertainment groups unnoticed in your dishonesty, but
> that shit don't fly in talk.origins. We call people on their bullshit
> around here.
>
> One of the central understandings of modern-day biology is that
> populations are understood not just by looking at the averages and the middle
> of the distribution curves, but by looking at the individual organisms and
> data points. Saying, "most people like skinny women" doesn't say a damn
> thing about the value, even of the sexual desirability, of those who do
> not fit within your accepted curves. People have widely divergent tastes
> in sexual partners, and so long as individuals maintain relationships of
> an intimate nature with other partners, they will give their genetic
> inheritance to later generations.
>
> In short, different strokes for different folks. What you may find
> attractive is not what all people find attractive, and even if it was,
> there's more to life than sex, and more to sex than appearances. It is
> precisely those people who are less concerned with their physical
> appearance who have the time, energy, and focus to actually make some
> progress towards a better world. Certainly they are much more interesting
> people.
>
> And just for the record, attractiveness in body types changes quite
> frequently even in mass culture. Playboy centerfolds of the fifties and
> sixties were much larger than the current crop, and the pin-ups of the
> forties and dancing girls of the earlier generations were even larger. The
> modern-day attitude towards being able to see a woman's ribcage are
> historical accident that come from a number of sociological reasons, but
> are in no way indicative of a general rule that can be applied
> cross-culture. To say otherwise is to be utterly, astonishingly, wrong.
>
> Am I getting through yet?
I'll cite as evidence the movies of Maryln Monroe, who in Some Like It
Hot is fat by today's movie standards.
Mitchell Coffey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 |
|