No, you are saying people should starve, and pretending I am saying it.
And then you say people should ignore their bodies and pretend that I am saying it.
You then try to talk about ascetics, I guess? Which no, you eat a healthy amount of healthy food, and not more. Have a treat, it’s fine.
Don’t eat much more than you need to and you will not be obese.
You’ve already stated that ingesting more calories then you burn causes obesity. This is correct.
Nobody is arguing that all food is the same either, this is another thing only you have brought up.
You’re making all these facetious arguments you’re shooting down yourself, so be sure to pat yourself on the back for surmounting the obstacles you constructed.
And no, the root cause of modern-day obesity is not body type and metabolism. Everyone has minutely different nutritional requirements, not just obese people, their nutritional requirements are not the root cause of their obesity, that claim is absurd on its face.
People are obese at different relative weights, and it’s natural to have different body types, and it’s equally natural to carry too much extra weight because you eat too much.
You know how to make fat ducks and geese? Feed them more calories than they need. Know why some dogs and cats are way fatter than the others? They get way more food than the skinny dogs and cats. Know why humans get fat? They eat more food than they burn.
As you’ve already stated.
It’s good that you’re learning about nutrition, but try expressing your nutritional tidbits to someone who asked you about them.
None of your anecdotes are related to the direct cause of obesity, which is eating too much.
Your third point is largely correct(cheers), but it’s not as easy to solve poverty, depression, or war as you think it is.
If you want to lose weight, all you have to do is stop putting food in your mouth, or put less food in your mouth each day. Simple, but not easy for many people.
Clinical depression, on the other hand, is caused by various complex chemical imbalances influenced by various environmental and social factors, so you can’t simply disentangle yourself from those chemicals and circumstances the same way that you can choose to stop putting food in your mouth.
Wait, you’re saying that there are nuances and subtleties that my simple solutions don’t take into consideration?!?
/s (I didn’t think this was necessary, but given your response…)
Clinical depressionObesity, on the other hand, is caused by various complex chemical imbalances influenced by various environmental and social factors, so you can’t simply disentangle yourself from those chemicals and circumstances
Yep, exactly!
Do you seriously think that eating - arguably one of the most fundamental and instinctual things that living things do - is not subject to complex chemical, environmental, and social factors? Really?
The solution “don’t eat so much” really is as naive as telling a clinically depressed person “just be happier” or telling a poor person “just go earn more” or telling Israelis and Palestinians “just don’t fight do much”.
Yes, the solutions really are that simple, at one level, but pretending like the knowledge of this solution gets us anywhere in terms of actually addressing the problem is just silly.
Misattributing your own false arguments to others doesn’t prove you any less wrong.
I’m not talking about eating, I’m talking about the solution to obesity.
They are not the same.
The difference between eating less food is much simpler and has fewer steps(one, if you are having difficulty counting) than the solutions to a war or depression.
The solutions for war and depression are not as simple as that of obesity.
Obesity? Eat less.
War? Stop selling Israel weapons from the US. But where does Palestine get their weapons? Issue a UN resolution. But nobody is bound to follow that resolution. Declare two states. But does each country agree to that? What about boundaries? And on and on. Every proposed solution comes with multiple various considerations that you haven’t taken into account.
Obesity? Eat less.
The facetious solutions you’re proposing to stopping a war or ending clinical depression are not as simple as you imagine, are actually impractical and will not work, while eating less is a practical and simple solution to obesity.
Misattributing your own false arguments to others doesn’t prove you any less wrong.
And continuing to push your facile argument doesn’t make you any more right.
War?
Fight less.
The facetious solutions you’re proposing to stopping a war or ending clinical depression are not as simple as you imagine,
Of course not! That’s what makes them facetious! But “fight less” is as useful a solution to war as “eat less” is a solution to obesity. Which is to say it’s trivially right, but not actually a solution at all.
are actually impractical and will not work
Right. It’s the same with obesity. Do you honestly think that obese people don’t understand the link between eating and weight gain? Do you think that they don’t spend their entire lives with people admonishing them for their weight?
You’re wrong in equating war with someone carrying extra weight, they are not the same situation at all.
War is often a very complex problem without a simple solution.
Right. Exactly! And obesity is a complex problem without a simple solution. Eating less is a trivially correct solution to obesity just as not fighting is a trivially correct solution to war. Please see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/
What obese people understand and whether they get admonished is immaterial to solving their obesity.
My point is that if it were actually so easy, it wouldn’t actually be a problem, would it?
If you’re aware that you’re making facetious arguments, then stop being facetious and implying false equivalents
I’m not implying anything, I’m offering analogies. And the sarcasm is a rhetorical device that seems to have flown right over your head. I’m sorry about that. I didn’t think you would actually believe I thought that the solution to war and poverty and depression was easy. They’re not. I’m trying to get you to see (argument by analogy, check the link again) that the solution to obesity is not either.
If your response is just “yes it is,” if you think that the trivial solution hasn’t been tried over and over again by millions of people who have desperately wanted to lose weight and keep it off, but have failed, you’re being willfully ignorant.
Hunger is a primal urge. It’s governed by a complex series of hormonal and neurological feedback loops. It’s influenced by sociological and psychological factors as well as the non-caloric nutritive content of available and tolerated foods. Those factors are shaped by culture and economics and history etc etc
When I say all this and you say “eating less is the solution”, it sounds just as silly and naive as when you talk about war being the result of historical factors, religious animosity, geopolitics etc, and I say the solution is not fighting. Which is to say, very silly and naive.
There’s nothing silly about the complexity of war, what is silly is you equivocating a complex situation like war with being obese
If you stop eating or eat less, you will lose weight.
Inarguably, eating less solves obesity and is simple to do. It is not as easy to eat less as it is to eat more, but it is much easier to stop eating food than it is to stop a war.
It is within most people’s personal power to control their appetite, it is not within most people’s personal power to stop systems of war, poverty or depression.
You’re promoting an absurd false equivalence.
Don’t worry, everyone understood your attempt at sarcasm, but the simplest way to help you understand how ridiculous your ambiguous inaccuracies are was to respond to them at face value, which obviously worked, as you’re now aware of how silly the arguments you were making were.
It’s good you understand that a war is a complex situation now. Next, you just have to wrap your head around how simple eating less food is, and how the characteristics that complicate issues like depression or war or poverty do not similarly complicate a basic symptom of overeating like obesity.
War, poverty, depression require complex solutions. Obesity requires a simple solution.
This has nothing to do with your tangents about nutrition or false equivalences or false claims about eating less not resulting in losing weight, this is about solving obesity which only requires a simple solution that can be implemented at any time without any preparation.
My solution to obesity is correct(as you’ve stated, we can all agree on it); obesity is still a problem largely because of an overabundance of available food coupled with a lack of personal discipline, seasoned with capitalist production and marketing.
I believe this will mark the end of this particular conversation, not because I won, and not because you won, but because we cannot debate on the same level.
If you ever do learn about what I’m calling the LMNOPs of the human nutrition alphabet then definitely feel free to express your new thoughts to me anytime you want to.
Since the article in question is discussing obesity and I named the root cause of obesity and then you immediately agreed that nobody can argue with that root cause(consuming more calories then you burn), we’ll say I “won” for the sake of accuracy.
Following your concession , you propped up unrelated tangential anecdotes about nutrition that you quicotically argued against.
It is not a matter of debate; you are bringing up and answering your own straw man arguments that I have not engaged with because they are your own questions and answers you have made up in your meandering monologue unrelated to the undisputed fact that obesity is caused by eating too much food.
Remember, you’re saying obese people are obese because they eat too much.
I’m saying obese people eat too much because they are nutritionally deficient.
I think that you think that I’m saying that obese people are not obese because they eat too much. I agree with you that obese people are eating too much.
However, my argument is the “why are they eating too much” argument. You have not touched on nor addressed any portion of my argument.
You are stuck in the “calories in calories out is the entire equation and everything else is irrelevant” portion of the argument, which is the ABCs of human nutrition.
I’m telling you that LMNOP is also part of the human nutrition alphabet and that it is an important portion of the conversation that is often overlooked.
Can you debate me on the topics I am mentioning, or are you still stuck in the ABCs?
No, you are saying people should starve, and pretending I am saying it.
And then you say people should ignore their bodies and pretend that I am saying it.
You then try to talk about ascetics, I guess? Which no, you eat a healthy amount of healthy food, and not more. Have a treat, it’s fine.
Don’t eat much more than you need to and you will not be obese.
You’ve already stated that ingesting more calories then you burn causes obesity. This is correct.
Nobody is arguing that all food is the same either, this is another thing only you have brought up.
You’re making all these facetious arguments you’re shooting down yourself, so be sure to pat yourself on the back for surmounting the obstacles you constructed.
And no, the root cause of modern-day obesity is not body type and metabolism. Everyone has minutely different nutritional requirements, not just obese people, their nutritional requirements are not the root cause of their obesity, that claim is absurd on its face.
People are obese at different relative weights, and it’s natural to have different body types, and it’s equally natural to carry too much extra weight because you eat too much.
You know how to make fat ducks and geese? Feed them more calories than they need. Know why some dogs and cats are way fatter than the others? They get way more food than the skinny dogs and cats. Know why humans get fat? They eat more food than they burn.
As you’ve already stated.
It’s good that you’re learning about nutrition, but try expressing your nutritional tidbits to someone who asked you about them.
None of your anecdotes are related to the direct cause of obesity, which is eating too much.
As you’ve agreed to.
The problem with poverty is easily solved: people just need to earn more. Easy!
The problem of depression is easily solved: people just need to be happier. Easy!
The problem of obesity is easily solved: people just need to eat less. Easy!
I can solve war too - people just need to fight less! And death: people just need to age less!
Man, someone get me a McArthur genius grant already!
Your third point is largely correct(cheers), but it’s not as easy to solve poverty, depression, or war as you think it is.
If you want to lose weight, all you have to do is stop putting food in your mouth, or put less food in your mouth each day. Simple, but not easy for many people.
Clinical depression, on the other hand, is caused by various complex chemical imbalances influenced by various environmental and social factors, so you can’t simply disentangle yourself from those chemicals and circumstances the same way that you can choose to stop putting food in your mouth.
Wait, you’re saying that there are nuances and subtleties that my simple solutions don’t take into consideration?!?
/s (I didn’t think this was necessary, but given your response…)
Yep, exactly!
Do you seriously think that eating - arguably one of the most fundamental and instinctual things that living things do - is not subject to complex chemical, environmental, and social factors? Really?
The solution “don’t eat so much” really is as naive as telling a clinically depressed person “just be happier” or telling a poor person “just go earn more” or telling Israelis and Palestinians “just don’t fight do much”.
Yes, the solutions really are that simple, at one level, but pretending like the knowledge of this solution gets us anywhere in terms of actually addressing the problem is just silly.
Misattributing your own false arguments to others doesn’t prove you any less wrong.
I’m not talking about eating, I’m talking about the solution to obesity.
They are not the same.
The difference between eating less food is much simpler and has fewer steps(one, if you are having difficulty counting) than the solutions to a war or depression.
The solutions for war and depression are not as simple as that of obesity.
Obesity? Eat less.
War? Stop selling Israel weapons from the US. But where does Palestine get their weapons? Issue a UN resolution. But nobody is bound to follow that resolution. Declare two states. But does each country agree to that? What about boundaries? And on and on. Every proposed solution comes with multiple various considerations that you haven’t taken into account.
Obesity? Eat less.
The facetious solutions you’re proposing to stopping a war or ending clinical depression are not as simple as you imagine, are actually impractical and will not work, while eating less is a practical and simple solution to obesity.
And continuing to push your facile argument doesn’t make you any more right.
Fight less.
Of course not! That’s what makes them facetious! But “fight less” is as useful a solution to war as “eat less” is a solution to obesity. Which is to say it’s trivially right, but not actually a solution at all.
Right. It’s the same with obesity. Do you honestly think that obese people don’t understand the link between eating and weight gain? Do you think that they don’t spend their entire lives with people admonishing them for their weight?
If you’re aware that you’re making facetious arguments, then stop being facetious and implying false equivalents and try a practical solution.
Eating less will solve obesity.
You’re wrong in equating war with someone carrying extra weight, they are not the same situation at all.
War is often a very complex problem without a simple solution.
Eating less is a practical and simple solution to obesity that unarguably works.
What obese people understand and whether they get admonished is immaterial to solving their obesity.
Eating less is a practical and simple solution to obesity.
Not fighting would solve war. Wouldn’t it?
Right. Exactly! And obesity is a complex problem without a simple solution. Eating less is a trivially correct solution to obesity just as not fighting is a trivially correct solution to war. Please see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/
My point is that if it were actually so easy, it wouldn’t actually be a problem, would it?
I’m not implying anything, I’m offering analogies. And the sarcasm is a rhetorical device that seems to have flown right over your head. I’m sorry about that. I didn’t think you would actually believe I thought that the solution to war and poverty and depression was easy. They’re not. I’m trying to get you to see (argument by analogy, check the link again) that the solution to obesity is not either.
If your response is just “yes it is,” if you think that the trivial solution hasn’t been tried over and over again by millions of people who have desperately wanted to lose weight and keep it off, but have failed, you’re being willfully ignorant.
Hunger is a primal urge. It’s governed by a complex series of hormonal and neurological feedback loops. It’s influenced by sociological and psychological factors as well as the non-caloric nutritive content of available and tolerated foods. Those factors are shaped by culture and economics and history etc etc
When I say all this and you say “eating less is the solution”, it sounds just as silly and naive as when you talk about war being the result of historical factors, religious animosity, geopolitics etc, and I say the solution is not fighting. Which is to say, very silly and naive.
There’s nothing silly about the complexity of war, what is silly is you equivocating a complex situation like war with being obese
If you stop eating or eat less, you will lose weight.
Inarguably, eating less solves obesity and is simple to do. It is not as easy to eat less as it is to eat more, but it is much easier to stop eating food than it is to stop a war.
It is within most people’s personal power to control their appetite, it is not within most people’s personal power to stop systems of war, poverty or depression.
You’re promoting an absurd false equivalence.
Don’t worry, everyone understood your attempt at sarcasm, but the simplest way to help you understand how ridiculous your ambiguous inaccuracies are was to respond to them at face value, which obviously worked, as you’re now aware of how silly the arguments you were making were.
It’s good you understand that a war is a complex situation now. Next, you just have to wrap your head around how simple eating less food is, and how the characteristics that complicate issues like depression or war or poverty do not similarly complicate a basic symptom of overeating like obesity.
War, poverty, depression require complex solutions. Obesity requires a simple solution.
This has nothing to do with your tangents about nutrition or false equivalences or false claims about eating less not resulting in losing weight, this is about solving obesity which only requires a simple solution that can be implemented at any time without any preparation.
Stop eating or eat less.
Let me ask you this, if it’s so easy for you to solve it and your solution is the absolute correct solution, then why is it still a problem?
The solution to obesity is simple, but not easy.
My solution to obesity is correct(as you’ve stated, we can all agree on it); obesity is still a problem largely because of an overabundance of available food coupled with a lack of personal discipline, seasoned with capitalist production and marketing.
I believe this will mark the end of this particular conversation, not because I won, and not because you won, but because we cannot debate on the same level.
If you ever do learn about what I’m calling the LMNOPs of the human nutrition alphabet then definitely feel free to express your new thoughts to me anytime you want to.
Since the article in question is discussing obesity and I named the root cause of obesity and then you immediately agreed that nobody can argue with that root cause(consuming more calories then you burn), we’ll say I “won” for the sake of accuracy.
Following your concession , you propped up unrelated tangential anecdotes about nutrition that you quicotically argued against.
It is not a matter of debate; you are bringing up and answering your own straw man arguments that I have not engaged with because they are your own questions and answers you have made up in your meandering monologue unrelated to the undisputed fact that obesity is caused by eating too much food.
Remember, you’re saying obese people are obese because they eat too much.
I’m saying obese people eat too much because they are nutritionally deficient.
I think that you think that I’m saying that obese people are not obese because they eat too much. I agree with you that obese people are eating too much.
However, my argument is the “why are they eating too much” argument. You have not touched on nor addressed any portion of my argument.
You are stuck in the “calories in calories out is the entire equation and everything else is irrelevant” portion of the argument, which is the ABCs of human nutrition.
I’m telling you that LMNOP is also part of the human nutrition alphabet and that it is an important portion of the conversation that is often overlooked.
Can you debate me on the topics I am mentioning, or are you still stuck in the ABCs?