|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
 Posted - 09/15/2005 : 15:42:54 [Permalink]
|
The convenience of being healthy without any actual effort, either physical or mental.
Ah, what a wonderfull world it would be.
However, the world is not like that and most things take some effort.
Constant weight fluctuations from crash dieting cause the body to go into "famine mode" and retain more fat next time fat is ingested.
I don't think it is a question of size per se, but more a question of health and fitness.
If one can maintain a healthy lifestyle whilst being outside the accepted fashionable standards then they are not being as much of a danger to themselves or a concern to their loved ones.
It is all an individuals choice and so it is up to individuals to make an assesment of their own situations and act accordingly.
I still somehow think that the myth of the jolly fat man is harder to maintain in our current social climate, Santa Clause not withstanding.
|
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
 |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 16:04:33 [Permalink]
|
| And since we're in the whole heavy issue... any recommendations for a girl who can't walk, has a thyroid problem (tended) and is already on a life-long commitment diet? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
LizW
Skeptic Friend
USA
113 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 16:12:42 [Permalink]
|
| Depends, why no walking? Physical problem, time, area? |
You learn something new every g****mn day! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 16:31:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
subjectmatter:
And I never meant to demean people who are weak minded, there is nothing wrong with that, nor is there anything wrong with people who are fat or obese or have cancer or are psychotic... If that is what they want then that's fine by me.
I see. So what your saying is you just can't help being judgmental and, dare I say, a bigot. I don't mean to demean you by calling you a bigot by the way. If that is what you want to be it's fine by me…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 17:23:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by LizW
Depends, why no walking? Physical problem, time, area?
Physical problem. Rheumatoid arthritis, to be specific, since eight months old. I don't mind being chubby (most of time...) but it would really help the whole starting-to-walk again business if I were slimmer. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 19:24:01 [Permalink]
|
Subjectmatter,
You have yet to give any scientific explanation of the dangers of diet soda in relation to obesity. You only gave a very vague hint of a recollection from some guy you saw speak that you didn't even know. I'm not saying that diet soda can't contribute to weight gain via the complexities of human body chemistry. I'm asking HOW.
And THIS:
"All scientific arguments, in fact all arguments that deal with the real world, are either arguments by authority, inductive arguments or both. As such, none of them produce strictly logically correct categorical truths, but no one is asking that of them. Further, no one can understand what is actually going on in the real world, only predict what is going to happen. That is what science strives to do. (Kant would argue that nothing can ever be said about the 'thing in itself' because all objects and concepts are produced by the active subject, reality being only the medium in which the subject exists)
Whenever we make a statement about reality we are misrepresenting it. And no one has actually performed all the experiments which science bases its reasoning on. However we know that we could perform them if we were so inclined and some groups of people will test them. So we trust then that this fact will keep scientists honest.
One thing I did get out of the lecture, which was abundantly clear: the lecturer claimed to have an explanation to the odd result that diet soda did not seem to reduce the frequency of gaining fat compared to regular soft drinks."
is not an answer.
You could start working for the Creationists with arguments like this. Michael Behe who wrote “Darwin's Black Box” and supports the moronic theory of irreducible complexity is a genuine biologist who works at a legit college here in PA. His theory is still stupid and people who accept it are also stupid.
Yes, indeed we TRUST science. But that doesn't mean we buy every little scientific discovery that gets announced. For instance, we believe evolution is true in a broad sense because it is a broad theory that is supported overwhelmingly by the scientific community and has decades of building supportive evidence. However, certain ideas within science are debatable. For example, in human evolution the Out of Africa Theory vs. the Multiregional Theory. Personally, I think scientists who advocate the latter are morons at this point. This is because I'm aware of the evidence for both – it interests me. But I've known anthropologists who still believe the latter is the correct theory, and who tell their students that.
Come to think of it, there's been other times I disagreed with professors after I looked into a topic on my own.
I believe that's what we call critical thinking.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/15/2005 19:25:42 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 19:28:29 [Permalink]
|
Subjectmatter wrote this: Now do you see?
Point well taken. Indeed, by definition, being overweight and being obese are two different things. However, manifested, they may not be two completely different physical states. That was the point of my illustration – that obviously the difference between 180 and 185 pounds is not huge. But I do also get your point.
Siberia wrote: Also, if you look carefully, that's precisely the way women have always been (just look at your average artwork from the near-to-distant past and see the trend; not obese, but 'chubby' and decidedly fat for modern standards) until the nutjob media industry threw about the ultra-thin model standard.
That's a misconception. Women back in the day of Rubens were much skinnier on average than women in industrialized countries today. That is why Rubens and others painted chubby women – because back then chubby was a rare sign of health and wealth, and thus, beauty. The ultra-thin model standards that we have today are not arbitrary. When common people are overfed, beauty standards tend toward skinny. When common people are underfed, beauty standards tend toward chubby. This is true across cultures. The media's nutjob reaction (and I agree with you that the ultra-thin is a crazy and harmful beauty standard) corrolates with weight gain in our culture, and I would argue that in this case there is enough anthropological and sociological evidence to say it is MORE than just a corolation. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/15/2005 19:32:33 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 20:46:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
The ultra-thin model standards that we have today are not arbitrary. When common people are overfed, beauty standards tend toward skinny. When common people are underfed, beauty standards tend toward chubby. This is true across cultures.
The common people in our culture do not have stretched lower lips or elongated necks. Why does our culture's beauty standards not tend toward these traits?
I'm not trying to be cute, I'm just asking.
(BTW--just so you know I understand your point, the same is true for skin tone. When peasants labored in the fields, tanned skin was out and pale, powdered faces all the rage. In modern times, a sun-bronzed body is more indicative of a leizured life spent on beaches and yatchs.)
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/15/2005 20:49:15 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 21:45:13 [Permalink]
|
The common people in our culture do not have stretched lower lips or elongated necks. Why does our culture's beauty standards not tend toward these traits?
Just because one thing (like fat-vs-skinny's relation to beauty standards) crosses cultural boundaries doesn't mean everything will.
Yeah, I experienced the skin tone thing in Vietnam. The women there wear masks and long gloves on hot days while riding motercycles in order to avoid getting tanned. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 09/15/2005 21:47:29 |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 22:55:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Subjectmatter,
You have yet to give any scientific explanation of the dangers of diet soda in relation to obesity. You only gave a very vague hint of a recollection from some guy you saw speak that you didn't even know. I'm not saying that diet soda can't contribute to weight gain via the complexities of human body chemistry. I'm asking HOW.
Oh, of course, by no means am I expecting you to believe it. I was just objecting to what I interpreted as dismissing it out of hand as false on very questionable premises. I am asking that allow for the possibility that diet soft drinks are a cause of obesity.
quote:
I see. So what your saying is you just can't help being judgmental and, dare I say, a bigot. I don't mean to demean you by calling you a bigot by the way. If that is what you want to be it's fine by me…
I do not consider what I have written to be judgemental nor do I see how you justify calling me a bigot... I am a bigot, but not because of my views on obesity but my perhaps rather more extreme views of (overly)religious people.
I must ask you to explain yourself more in-depth. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 23:18:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Just because one thing (like fat-vs-skinny's relation to beauty standards) crosses cultural boundaries doesn't mean everything will.
Well, going back to the weight thing, there is another explanation besides class. Namely, health. In the past, rich women were better fed and (it was presumed) healthier and more "robust" for it. In modern times, we now realize that excess weight is actually unhealthy, and heavy people are viewed as less attractive. Same with the tan/pale thing. Less and less people are overly tan anymore since the dangers of skin cancer have been revealed.
So what is seen as beautiful often corresponds with the traits people expect of healthy, child-breeding specimens. The overly-skinny model look promoted by the media is obviously not healthy, but studies have shown most individuals are not attracted to people who are underweight despite all the exposure to it.
And let us not forget the number one trait most promoted in the beauty industry--youth. The desire to look younger is a desire to appear more healthy and vigorous, which translates to more sexually appealing.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 09/15/2005 23:24:23 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2005 : 23:30:43 [Permalink]
|
Subjectmatter wrote: Oh, of course, by no means am I expecting you to believe it. I was just objecting to what I interpreted as dismissing it out of hand as false on very questionable premises. I am asking that allow for the possibility that diet soft drinks are a cause of obesity.
I dismissed it, but I did not dismiss it as false. That's why I wrote, "I'm not saying that diet soda can't contribute to weight gain..."
Allow the possibility? I can allow the possibility of most anything. Doesn't mean I'm likely to accept it.
I'm not taking issue with your suggestion that diet soda contributes to weight gain. I'm taking issue with you using the vague reference of what some scientist supposedly said at a talk that you may or may not have understood as a reason for believing that diet soda contributes to weight gain. And I also take issue with you using that preposterous shpeal on Kant and how we misrepresent reality when we make statements about it. Obviously some things are more rational claims about reality than others. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2005 : 06:57:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Allow the possibility? I can allow the possibility of most anything. Doesn't mean I'm likely to accept it.
I'm not taking issue with your suggestion that diet soda contributes to weight gain. I'm taking issue with you using the vague reference of what some scientist supposedly said at a talk that you may or may not have understood as a reason for believing that diet soda contributes to weight gain.
Then there is no problem. I only mentioned the 'vague reference' to convey the reason I had for believing this in tandem with my lack of knowledge on the actual principles operating; essentially an invitation for you to do any research into it if you feel so inclined. Which you now have done.
quote:
And I also take issue with you using that preposterous shpeal on Kant and how we misrepresent reality when we make statements about it. Obviously some things are more rational claims about reality than others.
The metaphysics of Kant are not simple and what I stated there is a gross oversimplification, but I doubt you have the patience to read a complete account of it. Nor do I have the time to write one. If you are really interested I suggest you read 'The Critique of Pure Reason'. Do not criticize it based on an offhand sentence which I wrote in order to clarify an argument however.
I'm glad we are both satisfied then. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2005 : 08:15:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Subjectmatter wrote this: Now do you see?
Point well taken. Indeed, by definition, being overweight and being obese are two different things. However, manifested, they may not be two completely different physical states. That was the point of my illustration – that obviously the difference between 180 and 185 pounds is not huge. But I do also get your point.
Siberia wrote: Also, if you look carefully, that's precisely the way women have always been (just look at your average artwork from the near-to-distant past and see the trend; not obese, but 'chubby' and decidedly fat for modern standards) until the nutjob media industry threw about the ultra-thin model standard.
That's a misconception. Women back in the day of Rubens were much skinnier on average than women in industrialized countries today. That is why Rubens and others painted chubby women – because back then chubby was a rare sign of health and wealth, and thus, beauty. The ultra-thin model standards that we have today are not arbitrary. When common people are overfed, beauty standards tend toward skinny. When common people are underfed, beauty standards tend toward chubby. This is true across cultures. The media's nutjob reaction (and I agree with you that the ultra-thin is a crazy and harmful beauty standard) corrolates with weight gain in our culture, and I would argue that in this case there is enough anthropological and sociological evidence to say it is MORE than just a corolation.
I meant it more as that it's not atypical that women will gain weight even without fast-food and soda... but yes, you're quite right. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
