> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:24:35 +0000, Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> 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.
> >
> > They won't get to five hundred extra pounds. They'll die first. I think
> > you need to put the threshold at nearer to ten.
> >
>
> How much closer to ten? Would you say someone who weighs 200 pounds is too
> overweight for you? 300? 400?
A woman who weighs even 200 lbs is going to need to be pretty tall for that
not to get in her way.
I think 300 lbs for a woman is very unhealthy, and 400lbs for a woman is
something which is grotesque and frightens kids in the street.
That is, if she even makes it to the street.
> > If someone has been ten pounds overweight for years, and stayed at that
> > weight, well, probably that's their weight. But if someone has a
tendency
> > to gaion ten pounds every year, then before they know where they are it
> > will accelerate and they will be like some people you see who can hardly
> > move. It's not only where you are it's where you're going.
> >
> >
>
> I think a lot of people put it on fairly quickly, and then have a hell of
> a time getting it back off again. But the larger point is that making fun
> of them is not going to help them.
I'm not making fun of them.
I'm telling them it's in their interests to lose weight.
People who mock them don't want them to lose weight, for they would lose the
object of their mockery.
I am not mocking them, only the idea that accepting such morbid obesity and
reclassifying it as the norm is for the best.
>
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >>
> > At only ten pounds overweight, probably only your partner has to adapt.
> >
>
> <snort> I don't think my partner would have to adapt at all if I gained or
> lost ten pounds. I doubt she'd even notice, except that I'd have to cinch
> my belt in a bit more.
Okay, so what are you complaining for?
>
> > Airlines will not be redesigning their seating for you. But that's what
> > the fat acceptance movement has been lobbying for, for its members.
> >
> >
>
> <shrug> Depends on the percentage of persons not able to fit into airline
> seats.
>
I had a dreadful flight back from Moscow, and I was next to a very thin
woman. She was Vietnamese, and she took her shoes off, and the stench of her
unwashed socks was unbelievable. I didn't bother with any inflight food, not
with that fetor under my nose.
I never even realised that women's feet could smell like that.
I nearly had my first use for the sick bag since they banned smoking on
airlines. I would definitely have hughied if I'd eaten the slop. As Hannibal
Lecter says, I was absolutely right not to eat it.
I thought it was gonna be be an empty flight since the traffic in all Moscow
was seized up because of the metro bomb and I had to go through country
lanes for a hundred miles to circumvent the blockages. No such thing.
Somehow, the whole planeload arrived anyway.
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >>
> > I think that to be Christlike in the matter of the sick involves
> > encouraging them to help themselves if that is possible.
> >
> > A person with an incurable disease can only be comforted.
> >
> > If a person has a disease which will kill them if they somke and get
> > better if they don't, then a christlike person, I believe, will
encourage
> > them not to smoke and follow their addiction, which is like an idol to
> > them, and commit suicide that way.
> >
> > With the morbidly obese, calorific food is the same as smoking in that
> > analogy.
> >
>
> For many people, lacking the willpower to lose the weight (or having
> enough desire to do so for whatever reason) makes obesity, in their case,
> an "incurable disease". Is it right for you or I to yell in their faces
> (or make horrible jokes towards them on Usenet) just because they're
> overweight? I think not.
>
What horrible joke did I make, pray tell?
And if not, why are you trying to make people believe I did?
Will power sometimes is helped along by timely reminders. People may not
think that it's good manners to give the timely reminders, but in this case
what is really caring and what is good manners are not the same thing.
> To me, Christlike behavior does involve helping the sick. That's an
> important duty, no doubt about it. But I place a much higher emphasis, in
> this situation, on confronting the unjust.
>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> > I don't believe that every woman needs to be a centrefold, in fact the
> > liberal use of the airbrush means that even centrefolds don't always
look
> > like centrefolds, and if they do, it won't be for long.
> >
> > I even believe kids in school should be taught to resist such notions.
> >
> > But that is a far cry from accepting things about yourself which can be
> > changed and if not are highly damaging.
> >
> >
>
> Depends on the size of the person. But making fun of them online,
> especially when they are trying to accept things they feel have not been
> able to change, is quite simply wrong.
>
Who is making fun of them?
In what way did I make fun of them?
Only LV, but she's not even a fat person, actually, she's just an attention
seeker who likes to get into these fights.
On another group, she encourages people to say very crude things about her,
including ascribing to her bestial acts, just for the attention it gets her.
> >> >> >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.
> >
> > If a person eats more calories than they burn, they get fat, and if they
> > burn more than they eat, they get slimmer.
> >
> > It's simple, it's scientific, it's plain common sense, and it is
> > vehemently denied by the fat-acceptance cult.
> >
> > Is it christlike not to repeat the truth to them?
> >
> >
>
> You missed my point entirely. Go back and read it again.
>
I missed the mental disorder point, ok. Well, what can I say? Usenet is no
place to recover from a mental disorder. It might give you one, but it won't
help you get better from one.
> >> >> >> 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.
> >
> > I call it lower criticism, but do go on,
> >
> >
>
> The term "lower criticism" also has a well-known and well-accepted meaning
> within biblical studies, but please go on.
I think all criticism whose object is to pit the puny jellybrain of man
against the revealed wisdom of Almighty God is lower, it's just a question
of how low they can get, but please do go on.
> >> 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?
> >
> > If you are someone who believes in Christ for your salvation, then I
have
> > nothing to add to that.
> >
> >
>
> But you think I'm wrong. I accept that, and am willing to listen to what
> you have to say. Do you have anything that you find particularly
> convincing in a theological sense about a young-earth (or rather omphalos)
> position?
Only that it is one of a number of miraculous things which are repeated and
referred to many times in scripture.
If we deny it, what else do we deny? The Babel incident? Even though that
is, as you can follow from my argument with aaron Clausen, and his comment
summing it up which I sometimes use as a sigfile, as good an explanation as
any other of how we got the language families, but is rejected as it
involves a miracle. Well I say salvation is a great miracle. If I'm going to
reject all the miracles then what about the miracle of the Virgin Birth? Of
the Resurrection?
Our hope is based on a risen Christ, our own bodily resurrection, and a new
creation. If you believe the New Creation and the bodily resurrection, then
you can't apply science to that, so why apply science to the first creation
also? Why not use omphalism as I do and accept what the bible says?
Also, the reason we have a seven day week is because according to the bible
it honours a literal six day creation. Please can people who do not believe
in creation but do believe in
Christ for their salvation kindly explain why Christ kept the Sabbath and
called Himself Lord of the Sabbath? Surely as God almighty he wopuld have
known if he really took much longer over the creation of the world and would
have given us some indication of this, rather than keeping up the deceit of
the six-day creation by continually observing the sabbath?
Why do the anti-Creationsist here keep seven day weeks? Why has no other
system worked? Why, when under both Napoleon's France and the Russian
Revolution, whenever they tried other systems, those systems failed? Why is
anything other than the seven day week only something from the realms of
science fiction?
These are all pieces of evidence in themselves. You don't need to be able to
poke something with a scalple or count its molar mass for it to be evidence.
Any court case is decided mainly on plausibility of arguments rather than
things you can carbon date and look at under a microscope.
> >> >> >>> >> > 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.
> >>
> >>
> > That's what I'va admitted. In CV I did that for the first time, and I
also
> > didn't cough immediately to the discovery for the first time. There's a
> > long record of other socks of mine which everyone but Jim Ledford
thought
> > were good fun, and even people have requested me to bring back some of
the
> > characters like Mary Robinson, Sproey von Weytzentrenner and leading
> > horticulturalist. But I put them to bed on 31st January 2003.
> >
> > CV was an experiment, because I often try to write experimentally as you
> > can see, but she was wrong. She was an unethical experiment. That's why
> > she's gone, and I said I'm sorry about her.
> >
> > I also said through her things I would have liked to have said
personally,
> > but it was tricky to put my own headers on the same computer at that
time.
> > It would have proved to the astute immediately that I was the CV
> > Strumpfpuppenfuehrer, which would have given the game away. So a lot of
> > stuff went through her, which ideally I wouold have preferred to write
as
> > Uncle Davey.
> >
> > Charles Casey nevertheless deserved whatever I said to him. His attack
on
> > Jason was so far over the top I just wanted to go for him. I don't like
> > people being mean to my friends.
> >
>
> I disagree that Charles C. deserved what you gave to him. His comments
> about Jason were pretty much right on the money, and Jason deserved
> everything he got and more from him. I wish Charles C. was still around; I
> miss having his comments.
>
> (By the way, has anyone had contact with him lately? I know he was in and
> out of hospitals, but has anyone had any personal correspondence worth
> noting in the last few weeks/months?)
>
> The fact that you used the CV sockpuppet as a voice agreeing with you on
> these matters only makes your actions more despicable. I know you consider
> what you do "performance art", and I understand that, but if you waltz
> into the New York Philharmonic and start painting yourself with motor oil,
> you're gonna get some people riled up no matter how good your artistic
> inspiration is.
>
This isn't the NYP, this is Usenet.
> We're trying to have decent conversations here. Sockpuppetry on that level
> just gets in the way, and it colors everything that you say (or anyone who
> agrees with you says) after that. If some of us keep bringing it up, it's
> only because we still remember how disruptive it was at the time.
>
I don't think so. I said I understood it was wrong and I have stopped doing
it, but the reason it is brought up again and again is it's the only hook on
my defects that people have got, and they want to get maximum political
mileage out of it. It allows them to call me a liar and color whatever I
say. Well sorry, but you find anyone here who has never told a lie, and you
can go and believe verything they say, and I wish you luck.
I shouldn't have done what I did with the CV puppet, sure. But are you gonna
let my failure get in the way of your own relationship with God? Why don't
people do the same at work and hand in their notice everytime one of the
other employees makes a mistake?
> >> > 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.
> >
> > I said I was generally sorry, got hounded for apologising by those here
> > who regard apology as a sign of weakness, and then retracted the apology
> > to the minimum necessary for my own conscience. You lot can think what
you
> > like, actually. You are determined to think the worst whatever any of us
> > do.
> >
> >
>
> Not really; in fact even John McCoy got a bit of respect after he paid off
> on that stupid bet. And we gave Nowhere Man a second chance at a debate
> even after he ran from the first one.
I don't know the background to this one. But gambling for money on Usenet is
not something I can relate to, although one time I did do a "who wants to be
a millionaire" game on soc.singles, but the rewards were in kopecks of the
Belorussian rouble, so had anyone won the million it would have cost me
maybe 6 USD, needless to say there were no takers until I upped the ante to
full Belorussian roubles, but that was on the contestant saying that a
children's charity would benefit. But the contestant lost at the fourth
question, so it was moot anyway.
>
> I suspect that all of us have had to apologize for something or other on
> an electronic forum of some kind; everyone who's been on a forum like this
> for any length of time, anyway. The point isn't that we make mistakes, but
> how well we learn from them and pick up after ourselves. Many posters felt
> (and feel) that your continued "performance art" in the aftermath of the
> CV/Charles C. incident is showing that you haven't learned your lesson
> about the issue, and that you don't really care about what you did to
> Charles except insofar as you got caught.
>
There are no socks run by me, so what's the beef about?
I can't help my style.
> >> <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.
> >>
> >>
> > People go on diets well enough, once it's clear they are at immediate
> > critical risk.
> >
>
> Many. Not all.
There could be Darwin awards for those who don't.
>
> >> >> >> 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.
> >
> > Like I say, I am sorry for not coming clean about CV immediately and the
> > record shows I have never done that before. I'm not doing it again. It
was
> > the only lie I've ever told on usenet, actually there was one other time
I
> > wasn't truthful, but it was a joke that happened years ago and only one
> > other person knows about it.
> >
> > If Ralph were one of mine I'd have to admit it now, but he isn't.
> >
> > I can think of at least five people it might be, but I'm not one to
pinkle
> > on other people's camp fires, so my lips are sealed.
> >
>
> Very well. I won't mention it again.
>
OK
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 |
|