Re: [JOSHIDIOCY] Josh's Idiocy

On 05 Aug 2005 22:48:12 GMT, gekko <gekko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Skip this part. It's only an attribution telling you that Josh Hill <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in <a6l7f1d7qkii4it2fag9pd0gelaliahm1c@xxxxxxx>:
>> On 05 Aug 2005 18:33:11 GMT, gekko <gekko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Josh wrote, apropos of nothing, regarding the notion that "wealthy"
>> >Americans being rarely obese, and "poor" Americans (false dichotomy)
>> >being obese:
>> >
>> >> it isn't a question of wealth. Rather, it seems to be a matter of
>> >> factors like self-control, knowledge, and the access to or time to
>> >> prepare good meals.
>> >
>> >Sixty percent of Americans qualify as overweight, burgeoning on
>> >what the surgeon general has deemed constitutes "obesity."
>> >
>> >"Wealthy" Americans have no more self-control than any other Americans
>>
>> Bull***. Self-control is the middle name of the upper middle class.
>
>That would explain why so many of them are now becoming obese.

Ever been to midtown Manhattan?

Among the richest fifth of households, only 14.8% are obese, whereas
among the poorest fifth 27.3% are. And, really, that understates the
difference.

>> The hereditary rich don't have to worry as much about it, but they are
>> nevertheless inculcated with self-control from birth. It is way
>> cultural.
>>
>> >and spend very little time preparing good meals. The truly wealthy
>> >have meals prepared for them, or dine out. What wealthy Americans have
>> >is genetics -- you don't see wealthy males courting obese females --
>> >club memberships, peer pressure, and surgery.
>>
>> ITYMTS "ein, zwei, drei."
>>
>> The current emphasis on slimness is a modern one, Gekko: as late as
>> the 19th century, rotundity was considered a sign of prosperity and
>> health. Yet one doesn't see very many obese aristocrats these days.
>> Have their genes changed in the last 100 years?
>
>Culturally induced plumpness is not genetic obesity, ***-for-brains

You appear to be hopelessly confused here, Stimpy.

>> And upper middle class people whose parents were self-made people from
>> working class backgrounds don't get fat.
>
>Oh yes they do, Josh.
>
>The ones who do not are the ones who engage in self-control
>*and* are physically active.

Gekko, I grew up with upper middle class people. I know /lots/ of
upper middle class people. They are not fat.

><snippage of excess verbiage>
>>
>> Yes, we know that genes contribute to obesity.
>
>That's what I *said*, dumbass.

No it's not. You said that rich people weren't fat because of their
genes.

<snippage of Gekko making all sorts of wild, broadbrushed claims as
she always does when she can't refute an argument>

>> >You've simply bought into the story they and their apologists have
>> >been feeding everyone.
>>
>> Yeah, let them eat cake. They're driving limos, I tell ya.
>
>You're too dumb for words, Anus-licker.

Oooh, another homo lame. We /are/ degenerating, aren't we.

>> >Food, Fuckass, is not heroin. Even a MickeyBurger is inherently
>> >healthy, in that it contains substances that are needed by your
>> >body. The unhealthiness aspect isn't in the food -- it's in the
>> >quantities consumed, AND the lack of exercise. Heroin is not
>> >something inherently needed by the body.
>>
>> Bull***. Our body manufactures and requires natural opiates, just as
>> it requires food, and we ingest natural opiates in our diet.
>
>Heroin is not something inherently needed by the body. You
>do not need to ingest it to survive. X is not Y, Josh, no
>matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise.

Yeah, and I suppose Krispy Kremes are something inherently needed by
the body?

Get real.

><snippage of excess verbiage>
>
>> To obtain the nutritional equivalent of sugar, our ancestors had to
>> climb trees and get their noses stung.
>
>Or pick fruit up off of the ground, or pick the canes and suck
>the juices.

A modern apple contains about 100-125 calories, a cup of sugar 700.
And the apple is loaded with other nutrients.

>> There were no pure vegetable oils.
>
>Fat is fat, numbwit.

Er, yes it is. Thank you for passing on that brilliant observation.

>> There was no butter.
>
>Until Og invented it. Which was not that long after he
>invented a slew of other things.

Er, no. You see, hunter gatherers don't /milk/ their prey -- the prey
didn't much cotton to it, and you do /not/ want to milk an angry
aurochs.

>> There were no fruit juices.
>
>Puh-lease.

Yes?

>> Plenty of fat from meats, and hunter-gatherers eat a lot of meat, but
>> when you have to chase down a mammoth to enjoy a sirloin, you burn a
>> lot of calories.
>
>Hello.
>
>Not sure why you're suddenly focusing on Og instead of Uncle Henry,
>Pimpleass.
>
>
>
>> No, what one sees again and again, all over the planet, is that when
>> traditional peoples adopt a modern western diet, they blow up like
>> balloons. You just can't get fat gathering roots and tubers.
>
>Because you're out gathering them, dipwad.
>
>It's a simple formula. The "traditional peoples" aren't just
>adopting the modern western diet, they're adopting the modern
>western quantities, modern western ease-of-access, and modern
>western tendency to sit all day for their jobs.
>
>When you don't go out to pick what you eat, or chase your
>fucking mammoths, or yoke your yak to dredge your rice fields,
>sheer your sheep, herd your goats, etc. but instead sit
>in a cube with a headset on telling people "No" all day,
>then load up on the thrice-the-size-they-need-to-be-portions
>of meat and potatoes, yeah. You're going to bloat up.

Oh, for ***'s sake:

Calories in a baked potato 100
Calroies in an 8 oz bag of potato chips 1,210

Calories per hour burned while hunting or gardening 295-300

Time to burn off energy in a baked potato 20 mins
Time to burn off energy in a bag of potato chips 4
hours

Ratio 12:1

Now if a hunter-gatherer burned 300 extra calories an hour for ten
hours, he might burn 1000 extra calories a day, since hunter-gatherers
don't work very hard -- they work maybe one day out of three. So one
bag of potato chips a day added to his usual diet /would make him
fat./

>> it's largely a consequence of diet.
>
>It's a consequence of consuming more calories than you burn,
>consistently.
>
>If you eat 1200 calories a day, but you burn 1400 calories a day,
>you're going to get thinner, Josh, not fatter. If every last
>one of those 1200 calories is nothing but fatty bacon, you're
>*still* going to get thinner.

Obviously. But what has that to do with anything?

Try eating 11 baked potatoes, Gekko. Now try eating an 8-oz bag of
chips. Same number of calories. Which are you more likely to eat?
Which /can/ you eat?

And try this: You have a plate of broccoli in front of you. Are you
likely to eat too much, that is, do you eat to the point beyond which
you feel satiated?

Now, you have a plate of Oreos in front of you. Are you likely to eat
too much?

These rich, artificial foods short circuit our natural appetite
control. Just a bit -- but it's enough, over a period of years, to
cause obesity.

>> >You can pile the largest plate available to you with nothing but
>> >lard-laced meat and greasy spuds, as did many a farmer, chow it
>> >all down, and still be scrawny and healthy. But you also have
>> >to go out and plow the back forty, milk the cows, and all the
>> >other physical activities that farmer did.
>> >
>> >So it boils down to just *one* thing in your short list, Brownpecker.
>> >
>> >Self-control.
>>
>> I think I saw your sequitur somewhere in Iowa.
>
>Being stupid is not something you should be proud of, Josh.

I'll remember that when I can no longer divide your IQ into mine
without recourse to modulus arithmetic.

>> >And while that's a tough one, it is not insurmountable, and the average
>> >person is capable of it.
>>
>> Yeah, well, violins, but I see lots of human bowling balls waddling
>> around hereabouts: self-control doesn't seem to be doing them any
>> good.
>
>You gotta have it and use it before it'll do you any good, Josh.
>
>The lack of self-control is a liberal-induced one. The concept
>of entitlement, handouts, and Uncle Nanny taking care of you
>is what's at play here.

Good God -- that's worse than Kurt's you're gonna put employees at
McDonald's out of work.

If it's entitlements and handouts, why is the middle class also
growing fatter?

If it's entitlements and handouts, why is obesity now increasing among
the poor in the third world?

> >Blimpo, who was limping slowly into the building, barely able to
>> >shift her weight down the sidewalk, can do the same.
>> >
>> >It is NOT up to the government to do this for us.
>>
>> It neither is nor isn't up to the government, Gekko. The government
>> does what we tell it to.
>
>And you would have it tell us what to do.

I would?

>You'd rather keep people in ignorance and slavery, Josh.

Yeah. I mean, I was the one arguing against college educations. Oh,
wait, that was you. Never mind.

>> Now if you can find a miraculous way to give people the knowledge,
>> self-control, and alternatives they need to refrain from getting fat
>> at McDonald's, fine. I don't believe in unnecessary government
>> intervention. But I can hear fat cells multiplying as we speak, and
>> you'll forgive me if, in the absence of any miracle cure coming from
>> your direction or of a sudden attack of integrity on the part of fast
>> food restaurants and junk food makers, I suggest that we consider the
>> tried-and-true techniques that have been used to discourage the
>> excessive consumption of alcohol and drugs, e.g., a sin tax.
>
>It's not your concern, Josh. It's not your fucking business that
>Blimpo's breathing heavily from the effort of stepping out of
>her car. It isn't. She is going to have a tough time of her life,
>and she's going to cost us money, because of the way you liberals
>are structuring these handouts. She is probably going to die.
>
>Unless she can get on the ball, take control of her *own* life
>for once, and do what's right.
>
>Cut her portion sizes in thirds and quarters. Park at the far
>end of the lot and walk in. When she gets stronger and more fit,
>add exercises. Get up an hour earlier each day and exercise
>for that hour. Sweat. Instead of plumping her ass in front
>of the TV, go do yard work, or actually play with her kids.
>
>Spend $2.50 on the Lean Cuisine and eat only that for dinner,
>instead of shelling out $7.50 for the Taco Yummy Super Meal and
>the ice cream shake.
>
>Why do you want to propagate a culture that does nothing but
>sit around whining and getting fat, Josh? People are
>smart enough to fix their own problems. A shame you liberals
>have no faith in them.

Where do you people come up with this stuff?

I don't give a crap about the ideological garbage: I need only look
out my window to see that poor people are getting fat. And if someone
proposes what I regard as a reasonable way to discourage people from
consuming too much junk food, I'll favor it. As it happens, we have
ample evidence that sin taxes work.

You, OTOH, have offered no alternative, no proposals, just lectures
about how liberals are making people fat through mind rays delivered
from thought control balloons -- lectures which would be ridiculous
even if obesity hadn't long been far more common among the poor in
conservative areas than liberal ones.

It's all very well and good to prate about personal responsibility,
but what does it do for the people on the street?

--
Josh
.