On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 09:00:26 +0000, Jerzy Jakubowski wrote:
> 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.
>
There's a difference between being fat and being gluttonous.
> We should accept many things, but not others.
>
If a person makes a decision to not worry about their weight and to accept
themselves at the weight that they are, is that something that we won't
accept?
> 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.
>
I am a bit overweight. While I'd like to be a bit slimmer, I have accepted
that my weight is not likely to change unless I make changes in my diet
and lifestyle that are not worth the few pounds that I could lose. I
accept that the risk of diabetes (runs in my family, BTW) and heart
disease (I had heart surgery when I was 17) and other illnesses increase
slightly at my weight, and will live with the risks.
In any case, the tone of your post, the arrogance of assuming that
everyone who is overweight must be a fat gluttonous pig who is completely
undesirable is completely wrongheaded, and will not gain you anything in
terms of converts.
> If someone is fat, then it is a good idea to make getting slim a very high
> priority in their lives.
Depends on how overweight someone is. If someone's got ten extra pounds,
it's nonsense for them to get bent out of shape about it. Five hundred
extra pounds is a serious health risk and can certainly be a serious
problem.
> 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.
Tell me exactly how anyone has to "adapt" to my weight problem.
> 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.
>
People don't find Christ (or accept principles of loving support, which to
my mind is largely the same thing) because they have other things in their
lives which get in the way. Sometimes it's a physical thing like eating or
drugs, other times (and much more seriously) it can be a philosophical or
theological construct that results in prejudgment of other people to a
degree that prohibits proper Christlike behavior.
In another message, I stated that I don't know a lot about the SSFA
newsgroup, and don't really care to find out. If they are spreading lies
about scientific data, then they should be corrected. But if they are
simply trying to live their lives and support others who are trying to
come to grips with being heavier than a centerfold, then I support them in
their efforts.
>
>> >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.
>
>
My point was simply that a mental disorder, if not diagnosed, can lead to
large amounts of weight gain that are very difficult to take off, even
after medication is prescribed. To claim that it's just a bunch of
gluttons deciding to eat too much and not exercising because they're lazy
is to refuse to look at the reality of the situtation.
>> >> 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?
>
>
I am certain that you feel as threatened by theists such as myself as you
are threatened by the truth of evolutionary biology and higher criticism.
But in the interest of honesty and fair-dealing, I am interested in what
you'd have to say to theists such as myself who reject biblical literalism
(and omphalism, since that is your stated belief structure) for what we
consider to be good scientific and theological reasons. Care to evangelize
for your position to one who is very clearly a non-atheist?
>> >>> >> > 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.
>
And what you said was still highly objectionable. And the use of
sock-puppets to the degree that you use them is a questionable thing in
and of itself, if you are attempting to have serious discussions with
people. It gives you an air of dishonesty even when you are being truly
straightforward.
> 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.
>
We are perfectly capable of dealing with the issues. You were deliberately
making fun of another poster in what I consider to be a cheap and low-down
kind of way; I simply pointed out that you have your own problems with
regard to ethical behavior, and I really think you only say you're sorry
because otherwise we'd hound you even more about it.
<snip material of Susan, to which she has responded already>
>>
>> >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.
>
>
Not true in the least. Many people, upon approaching the end of their
lives, decide to "live it up" and take what comes. Others simply decide
that the amount of life they have is not proportional to the quality of
it, and so will accept their fate and bow out gracefully. As a Christian,
you should be well-aware that there are many things in this existence more
important than the simple number of years you live. When I die, I hope
that I will maintain the integrity and decency to go with a certain amount
of honor, although of course I will take whatever advantages medical
science can give me.
>> >> 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.
>
I'll accept that for now. You did say you'd reveal yourself whenever you
were asked directly, so I'll assume you were speaking honestly there.
> Uncle Davey
--
...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 |
|