Skeptic Project

I'll look up the journal articles when you claim to have anything more than anecdotal evidence.

Even if I went through the trouble of grabbing the journal articles, you would claim it's all subjective and meaningless anyhow.

> If a person wants to eat fatty foods and eat vegetables it is none of my business or yours.

It is kinda..

If they are a kid, then you are neglecting looking after their health by allowing them to do so.

If an adult, then by doing so, you impact on health care costs, so someone else goes without a heart transplant because you wanted an extra burger..

One way to solve the adult problem as such, is let all the fat people live in fattown, and live with the consquences of there not being enough heart transplants when they need them..

So, rather than the rest of us suffer because of their poor ability to look after themselves, they suffer directly when the doctors treating them are in short supply because they keep dying too young..

Seems fair, if a little harsh..

> it wont stop me. Life is not a bland balance of routines and regulations, life is
> far more interesting than that.

A bit of balance can be good for you later on in life..

Take me for example, at one point underweight, now overweight, now I knew the consquences of getting overweight, the risks, and now I'm paying the costs with some health issues.

Now I'm losing weight to maybe fix things..

Imagine if I lived in a community that said, "don't get fat or you have to to shitfattown..", why I would listen more!

I can be just as stupid as the next person :-)

> If a parent wants to let their child do something again none of our business if it
> does not directly affect your life.

Agreed. (Its just, often things do effect people indirectly and thus a problem..)

To get us slightly back on off-topic:

"I've never heard that. Where did you get that information from? Sounds like anti-TZM propoganda, if you ask me. "

TZM isn't enough of a threat or important enough to anyone to warrant propaganda against it. The best way to turn someone off to TZM is to let TZM explain itself in it's own words.

"my idea? a united anti-capitalist movement, whose first aim is to educate the masses on the ills of the capitalist beast. i'm starting with you matt. "

Hey, that's not a solution!

Taxpayers don't have a bottomless money pit to pay for healthcare, and overweightness is a mayor blight on our ecomony these days:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/July/16/FT-obesity-workplace-costs.aspx</p>

Being overweight is inefficient and hurts everyone, it should be banned!

(I'm going to be generious though, and my first community, if you want to join and your overweight, as long as you continue to loose weight until you are not overweight, you will be allowed entry whhilst your overweight. (Limited numbers though..))

Thats interesting that a fat guy would demand people be thin in his fantasy world.

See heres the thing, people will leave your community set up fat town, employ doctors who like eating and study the necessary health care to maintain that lifestyle. Demands are met by needs and wants, not the other way round.

Healthcare for fat people did not occur before people got fat, it was brought around by necessity and for humaneness. People will continue in this way, and science and medical progress will continue to evolve into other methods and fixes while the problem exists.
Saying dont be fat or fuck off will only leave you and a load of skinny people in your community, bereft of any interaction from potential great people who might happen to be podgy. But then I guess they wouldnt want to be around your demands either and who could blame them.

All you will have is a bunch of like minded people who want the same things, and a lack of difference and diversity will make the community stgnate and become specialised.
Specialisation does not hold well for continuity and long life.

See how easy it is for a species to become extinct due to specialisation and lack of diversity.

> interesting that a fat guy would demand people be thin in his fantasy world.

I must also be slim before I can live in the same world, no rule for me and one for everyone else!

> people will leave your community set up fat town

The same logic one could say, people will leave the existing fat towns and setup slim towns..

They won't need to leave though, I will set one up for them, be far cheaper and better than them doing it themselves.

See how much I care, even about those that are different to me.

> bereft of any interaction from potential great people who might happen to be podgy.

They can visit for the day say, they just can't live there!

(Good question though, should I limit visitors to a weight limit...)

Oops my silly.I was trying to as much in that post about the entire discussion a few errors here and there

"Being overweight is inefficient and hurts everyone, it should be banned!"

Plus, fat people.

They can visit for the day say, they just can't live there!

You are under the assumption your skinny town holds anything of value or interest to fat people. Chances are they would have what you have and they would also have the advantage of knowledge about healthcare you dont. There would be no need for them to visit you.

in this case I don't believe that observing the behavior of countless children, teens, and adults would count as just anecdotal evidence.

We're talking about fairly fundamental aspects of scientific research. It's my opinion that most kids today are extremely dumb. I see countless morons walking around caring only about what's on TV or what their recent text says.

That doesn't mean it's true. I need to prove that through empirical testing.

I also never said I support dictation of behavior!

Mmm.. less than convincing youtube videos.

Anything with text in it perhaps ?

> starting feel worried you if you actually got near any children.

No need to worry, I did a really good job as a parent compared with many.

(I remember one time, solving the issue of, if my daughter gets beaten up at school, how do I solve it, why with karate lessons of course! only her mother and I agreed on that, everyone else thought violence wasn't the answer..)

Being a problem solver and smart helped me a lot in dealing with the issues kids raise.

I remember one mother saying 'those bloody kids love you more than me!' because I was kind but firm with them.

I'd hate to think how some folk here abouts are going to turn out parent wise going by what they've said..

> How those supporters are initially made aware of the movement does not matter to me

Similar.

Though once bootstrapped, it would be wise to ditch conspiracy stuff and focus on more mainstream science stuff in my view.

Otherwise, you will have a colindeer effect in that more people will leave than stay, as you lose folk due to the lack of serious science stuff.

Jesus Christ, you guys post faster than I can read.

Anyway, for what it's worth:

The 50-0-50 rule: Why parenting has virtually no effect on children - http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200809/the-50-0-50-rule-why-parenting-has-virtually-no-effect-chi

Here's the actual paper:

http://faculty.weber.edu/eamsel/Classes/Child%203000/Lectures/3%20Childhood/SE%20development/JudithHarris.html

Harris is on the other end of the spectrum of nature vs nurture. She argues that nature has a more prominent role, and the environment merely reacts to it. Parents who have a genetically angry child have to adapt and work around that. No matter how they parent, the child will grow up to be angry.

As quoted from the paper:

Maccoby and Martin (1983) pointed out one problem with the style-of-parenting research: The parents could be reacting to their child's behavior, rather than causing it.

The paper then explains:

What Baumrind was measuring was the ability of middle-class Anglo American parents to rear their children in the style approved by their culture. She found that parents who are competent at this job have biological children who tend to be competent at the jobs children do.

This is pretty much a argument for nature have a more prominent role than nurture. This, however, doesn't mean that we can just kick back and not parent at all. We can't let the kids run amuck with their friends because genetics will decide their fate.

> Who are you to talk about what people eat?

Well, as someone who is fat, I reckon I'm in a better position that if I'd always stayed slim..

> Homeless fatass loser, fuck you.

To use one of your terms, retard..

Do you want to borrow my dictonary so you can look up some bigger words to use ?

> Fix your own life and then come back, thanks

Fair comment.

So, whats your life like then ?