Obesity is not a choice

R.P.L said:
I'm not sure what you think I misunderstood. The original quote that I responded to discredited ridiculing fat people as a way to discourage obesity by saying that it never stopped people being gay. Now, I've never been fat or gay, but my understanding is that they're quite different things, and therefore you can't substitute one for the other in that way.

Maybe you weren't arguing that ridicule doesn't work but you did state that that's what ttaskmaster meant, and so I responded to that. That's what you get for conflating your argument with theirs, but perhaps I could have been more careful when reading / responding.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you're just on the wind up :P. You're STILL missing the point. It wasn't said that being gay or fat are the same. He used being gay as an example to explain his view that ridiculing anyone doesn't work. Was he right or wrong? It doesn't matter! It could have been anything, guys with big noses, I don't know. The point is, you're just focusing on what YOU perceived his post to mean. Your whole argument/disagreement about it and response with a sarcastic remark about whether he knew the difference, is that your explanation is the only right one 'because they can't be substituted for one another' . Yes, you are 100% correct, they are not the same. But his example was good enough that we understood his point, simple as that. Even after I explained and he confirmed what he meant, you still refuse to see his example. That is what you have misunderstood or refuse to acknowledge.

 
dirtybeatfreak said:
Not sure if you're just on the wind up :p. You're STILL missing the point. It wasn't said that being gay or fat are the same. He used being gay as an example to explain his view that ridiculing anyone doesn't work. Was he right or wrong? It doesn't matter! It could have been anything, guys with big noses, I don't know. The point is, you're just focusing on what YOU perceived his post to mean. Your whole argument/disagreement about it and response with a sarcastic remark about whether he knew the difference, is that your explanation is the only right one 'because they can't be substituted for one another' . Yes, you are 100% correct, they are not the same. But his example was good enough that we understood his point, simple as that. Even after I explained and he confirmed what he meant, you still refuse to see his example. That is what you have misunderstood or refuse to acknowledge.
Click to expand...

"I'm going to use an example to demonstrate my point even though the example refers to a completely different scenario which renders it invalid". Got it. Basically he meant something other than what the example implied - a simple "yes you're right, it was a BS example" would have sufficed :)
 
R.P.L said:
"I'm going to use an example to demonstrate my point even though the example refers to a completely different scenario which renders it invalid". Got it. Basically he meant something other than what the example implied - a simple "yes you're right, it was a BS example" would have sufficed :)
Click to expand...

Then please explain how I understood his point if it was a BS example?
 
Nasher said:
Natural selection. Obese people don't live long and aren't as fertile. If it's an illness then eventually it will solve itself :D
Click to expand...

Dunno about that. Every fat sow up here always seems to have a brood of 3 or 4 hamlets around her.
 
does seem analogous to the smoking problem that was/is also worldwide .. do you need cooperation/agreement from food companies that their products are responsible, or could you just launch competitive advertising campaign that says McDonalds/KFC/Dominoes/Coca-Cola/.... (above a certain threshold) are not healthy. ?

Advertising the negatives is what continues to work for cigarettes, and had worked for the famous UK AIDS adds, although nudging seems to be a new technique.
People need the same reaction they now have for cigarettes , this would seriously damage my health.

48798042456_6d74cbdb5d_c_d.jpg
 
"Moderation is key"

But when moderation is subjective.... well lets just say that key stops fitting in the keyhole.
 
ttaskmaster said:
You also made an assumption of your own, but were foolish enough to continue with that assumption even after its error was explained to you.
Click to expand...

Indeed. You said ridiculing fat people wouldn't work because it didn't work with gay people, which I foolishly took to mean ridiculing fat people wouldn't work because it didn't work with gay people when actually you meant something completely different. Silly me :rolleyes:
 
ttaskmaster said:
No, I meant exactly that. You just seem unable or unwilling to understand what it means.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what it means. If the statement is logically correct, then you could say that eating less will help stop people being gay because it helps stop people being fat.

Logic isn't your strong point apparently though, so I'm out. In case you post something along the lines of me running off because I've lost, I haven't but there's just no helping some people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom