Some poeple have real metabolic disease that prevent them to loose weight (or in a very painfull way), but too many people take this excuse (doctor, i just look at a cake and it take one pound, tell me a woman one day ...) in order to not change their habit.
It's certainly a bias, but i have seen many poeple who lost weight (the record was a 180 pounds loss) : so it's possible. The people presenting metabolic problems who do not allow them to lose weight (basically, the diet let them enter in a sort of hibernation process*) are not so common. Most of the obese with the proper diet and exercice can loose weight.
The demographic increase of obese in the occidental word, and in US first is more correlated with bad food and exercice habits, than in a sudden genetic mutation of the population.
Anyway it's not a reason, to discriminate people who have heavy weights. Overweight is just bad for health, but should not be a criteria of judgement. Afterall, as pointed out Amorph, some people can eat whatever they want and stay slim. I know some of them (and one is a medecine teacher specialised in nutrition : she know what she is talking about). These people are fat burner : they where disavantaged in the old time during starvation, something not so common in our occidental world.
* this is not a scientific description, but an image . The more this people are on diet, the lower their basal metabolism is becoming.
Thank Powerdoc, but careful when you say things that disagree with BR. He gets ornery, especially if you're correct and he knows he's wrong.
I think BR knows what he is saying and Powerdoc is just adding the very rare exception. Everyone knows that the exception is being claimed by larger and larger percentages of people who obviously just need to exercise.
My wife and I even use to argue about this. We would discuss what a portion was because she serves very large portions of food. She has been moderately heavy all her life and her portions were having the same effect on me. A food scale depersonalized that argument.
Likewise many people just don't realize that even the 2000 calorie mark is based off a 6 ft tall man. My wife for example is a 5 ft tall woman. When she found out she really only needs 11-1200 calories a day to survive she just about flipped. I mean that is one meal at McDonalds.
Plenty of people would rather remain ignorant and just claim genetics.
And likewise ON the topic, since you have friends very heavily into porn who are not in anyway abusive, would you think the claim about it turning women into objects to be raped and beat is wrong or just wrong in their instance?
I think BR knows what he is saying and Powerdoc is just adding the very rare exception.
Is Powerdoc a fool for clarifying?
Back on topic: I think it's wrong to assume porn turns women into objects. It could be a small piece in a bigger problem, but not the source, or even a major source. If women are being objectified, I think it's actually more than that. More than just women are being objectified as such, EVERYTHING is becoming more objectified. Your neighbors, your job, whatever.
Does porn lead to rape? No, aside from the rare cases with mental disorders.
Back on topic: I think it's wrong to assume porn turns women into objects. It could be a small piece in a bigger problem, but not the source, or even a major source. If women are being objectified, I think it's actually more than that. More than just women are being objectified as such, EVERYTHING is becoming more objectified. Your neighbors, your job, whatever.
Does porn lead to rape? No, aside from the rare cases with mental disorders.
No more than I am childish.
I'm interested on your view about increasing objectification. Could you post some more info/links/books on it? I think I have heard you mention this off-hand before.
I'm interested on your view about increasing objectification. Could you post some more info/links/books on it? I think I have heard you mention this off-hand before.
It's just a personal opinion.
Think of globalization. It's going to create lots of dollars, but it certainly takes the personality out of a lot of business. Just the creation and proliferation of fast food chains, ANY chains, is a great example. Standardized testing in schools, HMO health insurance, disposable cell phones, Brittney Spears canned pop, etc. With lots of things the focus is off individuals and on a product, efficiency or goal. Commodities are becoming the norm.
Without arguing the merits of any of that, I would say that is objectification of society and Porn is just following this trend, not leading it. You can even see it in the quality of porn. Video instead of film, 'storylines' today versus yesteryear, ridiculously large boobs and 18 inch cocks, etc. It's no different than most other aspects of society.
Think of globalization. It's going to create lots of dollars, but it certainly takes the personality out of a lot of business. Just the creation and proliferation of fast food chains, ANY chains, is a great example. Standardized testing in schools, HMO health insurance, disposable cell phones, Brittney Spears canned pop, etc. With lots of things the focus is off individuals and on a product, efficiency or goal. Commodities are becoming the norm.
Without arguing the merits of any of that, I would say that is objectification of society and Porn is just following this trend, not leading it. You can even see it in the quality of porn. Video instead of film, 'storylines' today versus yesteryear, ridiculously large boobs and 18 inch cocks, etc. It's no different than most other aspects of society.
So what is your view (and this is back to the premise of the thread I suppose) with regard to objectification and personal relationships. How does brand buying for example and commoditization (is that a word?) affect the individual in your view?
Thank Powerdoc, but careful when you say things that disagree with BR. He gets ornery, especially if you're correct and he knows he's wrong.
I don't know what the hell you are reading but Powerdoc agreed with what I said. All I said was that if you eat less than you burn, you are guaranteed to lose weight. There are ways of boosting your metabolic rate through exercise to help compensate for those people that have naturally low rates. Furthermore, you and people of your ilk only perpetuate the notion of passing blame to something or someone else. It's not MY FAULT...it's my METABOLIC RATE!!! Well got off your fat ass and exercise and get it to increase. Most of the time though these people have normal metabolic rates but like to eat 3000 calories a day.
Furthermore, you and people of your ilk only perpetuate the notion of passing blame to something or someone else. It's not MY FAULT...it's my METABOLIC RATE!!!
So what is your view (and this is back to the premise of the thread I suppose) with regard to objectification and personal relationships. How does brand buying for example and commoditization (is that a word?) affect the individual in your view?
I believe commoditization is a word, at least I use it as one....
You'll have to be a little more specific with 'my view' and the word 'affect', the questions are a bit too general. I'm not sure what your questions are, or where they're leading. I'll try to answer, but I'm not sure I'm on target.
My view? I think the amount of effort put into relationships is decreasing just as the amount of effort we have to put into most things is decreasing. Not necessarily at the same rate, but decreasing still.
Agreed...but I think that the additional point is that some people inherently burn calories at a slower rate than others. For some, it is difficult to lose weight for this reason: they would have to restrict their intake such as to eat less than what is the 'norm' . Of course this is not impossible to do, but it is both a physical and social challenge.
of course, i think having an idea of the "norm" in this case is also stupid. when a govt. health agency says "2000 calories is normal" then people figure that's what they should take in.
some people need a lot more.
some people need a lot less.
sure, 2000 might be the average, but hardly anyone is going to actually be at exactly 2000. rather they'll be distributed all over a bell curve, probably well mixed on either end.
then people say it's not fair that person A gets to eat whatever they want, while they have to be careful. i wonder if they same people would sit around and complain that someone else is taller than them, and it's just not fair.
many of these traits have huge genetic components. however, unlike height, you can actually increase the rate at which you burn calories through exercise, so at least there's some balancing options available.
The problem is that some (very few in reality, as PowerDoc said) people's metabolic processes are so screwed up that losing weight is a danger to their health. Calorie intake is obviously not the same as nutrition, so simply taking away calories can be harmful if not done judiciously. But that's not the current tangent -- er, discussion.
The problem is that some (very few in reality, as PowerDoc said) people's metabolic processes are so screwed up that losing weight is a danger to their health. Calorie intake is obviously not the same as nutrition, so simply taking away calories can be harmful if not done judiciously. But that's not the current tangent -- er, discussion.
Actually that isn't the discussion. This forum is amazing. This has to be the only place on the planet where the topic contains the word PORN and the men are arguing about who can lose weight and how.
Actually that isn't the discussion. This forum is amazing. This has to be the only place on the planet where the topic contains the word PORN and the men are arguing about who can lose weight and how.
Nick
It's important though. Bunge would say that we need more fat chicks in main stream porn because they are discriminated against based on a disability. Of course the disability is that they cannot put the fork down.
Comments
It's certainly a bias, but i have seen many poeple who lost weight (the record was a 180 pounds loss) : so it's possible. The people presenting metabolic problems who do not allow them to lose weight (basically, the diet let them enter in a sort of hibernation process*) are not so common. Most of the obese with the proper diet and exercice can loose weight.
The demographic increase of obese in the occidental word, and in US first is more correlated with bad food and exercice habits, than in a sudden genetic mutation of the population.
Anyway it's not a reason, to discriminate people who have heavy weights. Overweight is just bad for health, but should not be a criteria of judgement. Afterall, as pointed out Amorph, some people can eat whatever they want and stay slim. I know some of them (and one is a medecine teacher specialised in nutrition : she know what she is talking about). These people are fat burner : they where disavantaged in the old time during starvation, something not so common in our occidental world.
* this is not a scientific description, but an image . The more this people are on diet, the lower their basal metabolism is becoming.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Some poeple have real metabolic disease that prevent them to loose weight...
Thank Powerdoc, but careful when you say things that disagree with BR. He gets ornery, especially if you're correct and he knows he's wrong.
Originally posted by bunge
Thank Powerdoc, but careful when you say things that disagree with BR. He gets ornery, especially if you're correct and he knows he's wrong.
I think BR knows what he is saying and Powerdoc is just adding the very rare exception. Everyone knows that the exception is being claimed by larger and larger percentages of people who obviously just need to exercise.
My wife and I even use to argue about this. We would discuss what a portion was because she serves very large portions of food. She has been moderately heavy all her life and her portions were having the same effect on me. A food scale depersonalized that argument.
Likewise many people just don't realize that even the 2000 calorie mark is based off a 6 ft tall man. My wife for example is a 5 ft tall woman. When she found out she really only needs 11-1200 calories a day to survive she just about flipped. I mean that is one meal at McDonalds.
Plenty of people would rather remain ignorant and just claim genetics.
And likewise ON the topic, since you have friends very heavily into porn who are not in anyway abusive, would you think the claim about it turning women into objects to be raped and beat is wrong or just wrong in their instance?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I think BR knows what he is saying and Powerdoc is just adding the very rare exception.
Is Powerdoc a fool for clarifying?
Back on topic: I think it's wrong to assume porn turns women into objects. It could be a small piece in a bigger problem, but not the source, or even a major source. If women are being objectified, I think it's actually more than that. More than just women are being objectified as such, EVERYTHING is becoming more objectified. Your neighbors, your job, whatever.
Does porn lead to rape? No, aside from the rare cases with mental disorders.
Originally posted by bunge
Is Powerdoc a fool for clarifying?
Back on topic: I think it's wrong to assume porn turns women into objects. It could be a small piece in a bigger problem, but not the source, or even a major source. If women are being objectified, I think it's actually more than that. More than just women are being objectified as such, EVERYTHING is becoming more objectified. Your neighbors, your job, whatever.
Does porn lead to rape? No, aside from the rare cases with mental disorders.
No more than I am childish.
I'm interested on your view about increasing objectification. Could you post some more info/links/books on it? I think I have heard you mention this off-hand before.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm interested on your view about increasing objectification. Could you post some more info/links/books on it? I think I have heard you mention this off-hand before.
It's just a personal opinion.
Think of globalization. It's going to create lots of dollars, but it certainly takes the personality out of a lot of business. Just the creation and proliferation of fast food chains, ANY chains, is a great example. Standardized testing in schools, HMO health insurance, disposable cell phones, Brittney Spears canned pop, etc. With lots of things the focus is off individuals and on a product, efficiency or goal. Commodities are becoming the norm.
Without arguing the merits of any of that, I would say that is objectification of society and Porn is just following this trend, not leading it. You can even see it in the quality of porn. Video instead of film, 'storylines' today versus yesteryear, ridiculously large boobs and 18 inch cocks, etc. It's no different than most other aspects of society.
Originally posted by bunge
It's just a personal opinion.
Think of globalization. It's going to create lots of dollars, but it certainly takes the personality out of a lot of business. Just the creation and proliferation of fast food chains, ANY chains, is a great example. Standardized testing in schools, HMO health insurance, disposable cell phones, Brittney Spears canned pop, etc. With lots of things the focus is off individuals and on a product, efficiency or goal. Commodities are becoming the norm.
Without arguing the merits of any of that, I would say that is objectification of society and Porn is just following this trend, not leading it. You can even see it in the quality of porn. Video instead of film, 'storylines' today versus yesteryear, ridiculously large boobs and 18 inch cocks, etc. It's no different than most other aspects of society.
So what is your view (and this is back to the premise of the thread I suppose) with regard to objectification and personal relationships. How does brand buying for example and commoditization (is that a word?) affect the individual in your view?
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Thank Powerdoc, but careful when you say things that disagree with BR. He gets ornery, especially if you're correct and he knows he's wrong.
I don't know what the hell you are reading but Powerdoc agreed with what I said. All I said was that if you eat less than you burn, you are guaranteed to lose weight. There are ways of boosting your metabolic rate through exercise to help compensate for those people that have naturally low rates. Furthermore, you and people of your ilk only perpetuate the notion of passing blame to something or someone else. It's not MY FAULT...it's my METABOLIC RATE!!! Well got off your fat ass and exercise and get it to increase. Most of the time though these people have normal metabolic rates but like to eat 3000 calories a day.
Originally posted by BR
Furthermore, you and people of your ilk only perpetuate the notion of passing blame to something or someone else. It's not MY FAULT...it's my METABOLIC RATE!!!
Your ignorance makes you look silly.
Originally posted by trumptman
So what is your view (and this is back to the premise of the thread I suppose) with regard to objectification and personal relationships. How does brand buying for example and commoditization (is that a word?) affect the individual in your view?
I believe commoditization is a word, at least I use it as one....
You'll have to be a little more specific with 'my view' and the word 'affect', the questions are a bit too general. I'm not sure what your questions are, or where they're leading. I'll try to answer, but I'm not sure I'm on target.
My view? I think the amount of effort put into relationships is decreasing just as the amount of effort we have to put into most things is decreasing. Not necessarily at the same rate, but decreasing still.
you CANNOT gain weight if you ingest LESS calories than you BURN.
does anyone disagree with the above statement?
Originally posted by alcimedes
[...]
does anyone disagree with the above statement?
Agreed...but I think that the additional point is that some people inherently burn calories at a slower rate than others. For some, it is difficult to lose weight for this reason: they would have to restrict their intake such as to eat less than what is the 'norm' . Of course this is not impossible to do, but it is both a physical and social challenge.
some people need a lot more.
some people need a lot less.
sure, 2000 might be the average, but hardly anyone is going to actually be at exactly 2000. rather they'll be distributed all over a bell curve, probably well mixed on either end.
then people say it's not fair that person A gets to eat whatever they want, while they have to be careful. i wonder if they same people would sit around and complain that someone else is taller than them, and it's just not fair.
many of these traits have huge genetic components. however, unlike height, you can actually increase the rate at which you burn calories through exercise, so at least there's some balancing options available.
Originally posted by alcimedes
unless someone rewrote the laws physics while i was out playing broomball last night, BR is so right it makes my teeth ache.
Then go to the dentist. BR claimed his words were 'indisputable fact', but Powerdoc accurately disputed him. Three cheers for the internet.
(Actually, that's serious in a way.)
The problem is that some (very few in reality, as PowerDoc said) people's metabolic processes are so screwed up that losing weight is a danger to their health. Calorie intake is obviously not the same as nutrition, so simply taking away calories can be harmful if not done judiciously. But that's not the current tangent -- er, discussion.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
They can get bloated, anyway.
(Actually, that's serious in a way.)
The problem is that some (very few in reality, as PowerDoc said) people's metabolic processes are so screwed up that losing weight is a danger to their health. Calorie intake is obviously not the same as nutrition, so simply taking away calories can be harmful if not done judiciously. But that's not the current tangent -- er, discussion.
Actually that isn't the discussion. This forum is amazing. This has to be the only place on the planet where the topic contains the word PORN and the men are arguing about who can lose weight and how.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually that isn't the discussion. This forum is amazing. This has to be the only place on the planet where the topic contains the word PORN and the men are arguing about who can lose weight and how.
Nick
It's important though. Bunge would say that we need more fat chicks in main stream porn because they are discriminated against based on a disability. Of course the disability is that they cannot put the fork down.
Originally posted by alcimedes
so bunge. are you saying that people can get fat when they take in less calories than they burn?
I think he'd rather declare the sky plaid with purple stripes, and proceed to set himself on fire, than agree with BR.
Bunge, you should give BR a big bear hug.