"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,
It is never genetic. It is a question of more food in than calories
burned.
You are the one here who is bluffing -- pretending to be the VOICE OF
MORALITY and real science. But you don't know what you are talking
about. Tell us, for example, how anyone could store fat while burning
more calories than they consume??
and even when it's not, certain eating disorders seem to be
> caused by mental disorders rather than lack of personal willpower.
Low rent word games here. "Mental disorders" ??? You mean like an
addiction to food? How can a purely mental disorder insert calories
into anyones body?
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.
> >> >
You want a quick dose of reality? Try to sell anything with a
picture of a fat person holding it up.
What? You don't like this reality? Why not?
It seems you prefer the kind of reality that you can intimidate and
control and spray moral-sounding vapors at.
I get the impression that you are posing as the serious adult
dispensing serious advice. But I think it is all a hollow act.
Nature is serious. Nature you cannot bluff or intimidate. Nature
hates fattness. It ruthlessly inflicts diabetes, hypertension, and an
early painful death upon fat people. You cannot get more serious or
more real than that.
You are the one here who is pimping a form of anti-pagan christian
religiousity.
> >> >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?
>
> <snip .sig>
>
> --
> ...and it is my belief that no greater good has ever befallen you in this city
> than my service to my God. [...] Wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness
> brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and that state.
>
> Plato, quoting Socrates, from The _Apology_
>
> --Daniel Harper
>
> (Change terra to earth for email)
|
| 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 |
|