Susan S <otoeremovethis@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<749220ddnrgqmanl7tfej3g2ko3e4lv89q@4ax.com>...
> In talk.origins I read this message from "Daniel Harper"
> <daniel_harper@terralink.net>:
> >>
> >
> >You're such a troll.
heh.
> >
> >But I'll respond anyway.
shocked, i tel u.
> >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.
> >
Actually gluttony-acceptance is acceptance-abuse.
We should accept many things, but not others.
I am not talking about dissing people who are tring to get to grips
with their weight problem and finding it hard to get the will power. I
understand that. The final analysis though, is either the will power
will have to come or there is every chance that they will suffer all
the problems of obesity, sucha s wasted youth and shorter old age,
diabetes and other fat-related health problems, and also they will
probably not maximise their career and family potential.
If someone is fat, then it is a good idea to make getting slim a very
high priority in their lives. I wouldn't put it before getting in
order spiritually, but it would be wrong to tell people, as the
fat-acceptance cult does, that they are fine the way they are and
everyone else has to adapt. That's the same doctrine that keeps people
believing they're okay as they are in other areas and never want to
change. They don't repent and find Christ for the same reason they
don't diet - because they believe they are fine as they are. Fat
acceptance is all about spreading that lie.
> >And yes, food addiction is a disorder, sometimes requiring medication to
> >help correct.
No-one's suggesting they shouldn't take the medicine but the
fat-acceptance movement itself.
> >
> >> 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.
> >>>
Hmmmn. And you think I don't?
> >>>
> >>> >> > 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.
> >>>
There's nothing I said as Constance Vigilant to Charles Casey I
wouldn't say to his face, but it was not right to use a sock for that
level of debate. I'm through using socks for religious debate.
But this is a pointless distraction, trying to steer off the issue by
getting mileage out of what I did wrong. Why cannot you just deal with
the issues, you people? I am sorry that your debating techniques are
so poor and pathetic.
> >>> >> >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.
Get him a Nigella Lawson book. Or a video, if they're available.
That'll change his mind.
I certainly advise you to do that, rather than become a shambling
shoggoth.
I have no doubt in my mind that a woman _can_ be too slim, but that
doesn't seem to be the problem for most Americans.
>
> >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.
>
Halle Berry has many more admirers.
> 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.
>
I'm quite the opposite. I love women, and if anything, that's often
been my weakness.
> >> 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.
>
I didn't write that, but I think you will find it's true enough.
> 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.
>
I think you're using the Lenny Flank
cut-and-paste-and-bore-them-to-death routine.
> 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 talk nonsense.
Once the doctor says "okay, you've got only six months left to live"
everybody drops their addictions, be it food, drink, smoking, sex.
There's nothing you would choose over living a bit longer. Early death
is what nobody wants or is willing to accept given a choice, unless
they have a case of severe mental illness. Your comment is glib and
unfounded. Even yesterday on Russian TV this point was made by a
practicing psychologist in the studio.
> >> 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?
Not that I know of.
Anyway, I would have composed that name slightly differently.
So that proves it.
Uncle Davey
|
| 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 |
|