In talk.origins I read this message from "Daniel Harper"
<daniel_harper@terralink.net>:
>On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 05:15:39 +0000, Ralph DuBose wrote:
>
>> "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:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> news:892cb437.0402020645.66f5141b@posting.google.com...
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> > 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??
>
>That's not the issue. The issue is twofold:
>
>1. People's bodies are different, and biochemistry is not as simple as we
>like to think sometimes. The same amount of exercise will not burn the
>same number of calories in my body as in yours. People are genetically
>predisposed towards a lot of things; obesity is one of them. People also
>have different hobbies and attitudes towards what's important in life;
>looking at a dozen or so of your posts, I see that you are (or are
>claiming to be) a macho jock, possibly ex-military, who is in great shape
>and spends all his time at the gym. Great for you. Personally, I find my
>intellectual life much more stimulating and, while I try not to let myself
>get too large, I don't particularly worry about my weight. What you gain
>in muscle mass you lose somewhere else in your life (from this post, I'd
>say basic reasoning ability).
>
>2. The larger point, which you totally missed, is that even if people are
>overweight solely from their own actions with no mitigating circumstances,
>UD's response to the OP is not helpful in the slightest, and only serves
>to denigrate the poster and others like him/her. Uncle Davey has been
>shown on numerous occasions to be totally ignorant of, well, everything he
>has ever discussed except for his skill speaking languages. So I'd take
>whatever he tells you with a grain of salt. And in any case, yelling at
>someone who's overweight is not helpful to making them less so.
>
>>
>> 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're such a troll.
>
>But I'll respond anyway. People with eating disorders often find
>themselves trapped in a vicious cycle, in which low self-esteem or other,
>much more serious, mental disorders such as depression lead to "comfort
>food" that makes them feel better. As the weight goes up, they are led
>back to their original food of choice to stop hurting, at least
>temporarily. The trick is to help break the cycle, certainly with
>self-discipline and a vigilance towards one's behavior, but also with
>acceptance of their own essential good nature and with an understanding
>that it takes time to break their bad habits. To come barging into an
>acceptance group, yelling like a madman about people eating too much, does
>nobody any good whatsoever.
>
>And yes, food addiction is a disorder, sometimes requiring medication to
>help correct.
>
>> 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.
>
>The Barefoot Contessa does just fine on the Food Network.
>
My husband's favorite TV chief. He thinks she looks like a good
cook should. More than once, he has suggested *I* should acquire
some additional padding.
>Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock were two of the finest filmmakers of all
>time, who were personally identified with their bodies of work.
>
>Plus-size models are often used in modelling large-size clothing and
>maternity wear, and don't seem to hurt sales.
>
>Missy Elliott (spelling?) is one of the finest hip-hop artists of all
>time, and while she's lost weight recently, her early albums were not
>hindered by her weight. Ditto for John Popper of Blues Traveller.
>
Queen Latifah! She is stunning. I know men and women who just
think she looks great.
Davey's problem here is he assume's that his standard is/should
be everyone's. Reader's will note that is generally true for all
his ideas. And he is that most boring of creatures, the little
boy misogynist.
>> What? You don't like this reality? Why not?
>
>I think what you mean is that Madison Avenue sells products based on sex
>appeal, and tend to use microscopic models in order to do so. You are, of
>course, correct. But the larger context is that "skinny equals sexy" is
>not a universal standard even today, much less across the bounds of
>centuries and culture. "Reality" is composed of individual people, who
>have varying desires and a great deal of variation with regard to all
>aspects of looks. The girls in liquor ads are in no way representative of
>what real people look like, or what real people find attractive.
>
>> 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.
>
>Classic projection. You are obviously talking out of your ass.
>
>> 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.
>
Once again, Davey is ignorant. He knows nothing about the
evolution of body types. This is not surprising, since he rejects
the concept of evolution.
Susan Silberstein
"Mister Charles Darwin had the gall to ask..."
-REM, "Man on the Moon"
>"Nature" is an abstract concept describing the aggregate statistical
>reality of the universe. Selective advantage is not a discrete thing, but
>can be conferred by any number of survival strategies. While the
>possibility of diabetes goes up with weight, so does the ability to resist
>cold weather. Were our climate to suddenly change, those with an extra
>layer or two of padding will be better able to survive. It is, ironically,
>athletes who are least able to survive in cold weather, as they have
>"trained" their bodies to dissipate heat more effectively.
>
Once again, Davey is ignorant. He knows nothing about the
evolution of body types. This is not surprising, since he rejects
the concept of evolution.
Susan Silberstein
"Mister Charles Darwin had the gall to ask..."
-REM, "Man on the Moon"
>And early death does not make life any less full. Many people make the
>deliberate choice that a life lived until fifty eating what they want is
>better than one lived to eighty but eating bran muffins and exercising
>five times a week. We may argue over the relative merits of these
>positions, as well as all the values in between, but people should (and
>do, in a free society) have the right to make trade-offs regarding their
>health for themselves. By the way, do you smoke or drink?
>
>> You are the one here who is pimping a form of anti-pagan christian
>> religiousity.
>>
>
>I have no idea what you're talking about here. Perhaps you should define
>"anti-pagan christian religiousity" for me before we continue with this
>theological discussion.
>
><snip rest, which was not responded to in the original message>
>
>By the way, are you an Uncle Davey sock puppet?
|
| 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 |
|