<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Americans Love Being Fat</title>
	<link>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/</link>
	<description>only slightly less evil than disney</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:09:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: kate</title>
		<link>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-54</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:16:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-54</guid>
					<description>wow, i think this is sad, and sadder still that I even tried to read any of it.  bitches.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>wow, i think this is sad, and sadder still that I even tried to read any of it.  bitches.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Lance</title>
		<link>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-48</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:09:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-48</guid>
					<description>Why nary, such linguistic communication is indispensable for the furtherance of gregarious reforms manifest in most geo-political landscapes.  Furthermore the spatial relation of these prodigious linguistic communication can only intensify, enhance, and compound the structured difference of opinion to its up most level of ratiocinative conclusions.  Were I to bespeak you to over modify these statements,  your position would undoubtedly de-escalate and the interchange of communicative ideas would indeed dissipate.  Furthermore, my own use of such spatial linguistic communication can only further to lubricate each others rudimentary inclination towards agreement.  Mmm I said lube.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why nary, such linguistic communication is indispensable for the furtherance of gregarious reforms manifest in most geo-political landscapes.  Furthermore the spatial relation of these prodigious linguistic communication can only intensify, enhance, and compound the structured difference of opinion to its up most level of ratiocinative conclusions.  Were I to bespeak you to over modify these statements,  your position would undoubtedly de-escalate and the interchange of communicative ideas would indeed dissipate.  Furthermore, my own use of such spatial linguistic communication can only further to lubricate each others rudimentary inclination towards agreement.  Mmm I said lube.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: James</title>
		<link>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-46</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:20:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-46</guid>
					<description>So what you are telling me is that you are offended by the use of big words and progress?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So what you are telling me is that you are offended by the use of big words and progress?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Will</title>
		<link>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-45</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:16:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-45</guid>
					<description>Ok, all Latin aside.  I want to know exactly what we are arguing about 
because it seems to have gotten confused.
James, you said that Lance and I were using a straw-man fallacy.  That is, that we mis-represented your argument.  If that is the case, then I did not do so intentionally.
Are you simply making a deceleration of value, that you believe in a healthy lifestyle and others should do the same?
Or are you saying that there is something inherently flawed in the current system that requires large-scale social (that is, governmental) action?
Or is there some other option that I'm leaving out?

My main argument was that this is a complex issue.  Those selling food want us to buy their unhealthy food, and those selling images lead us to want to imitate those images.  These are conflicting forces that cause people some confusion (perhaps those that have examined the situation have escaped this confusion, but that involves a more complex argument).  Then there is the complication of regulation and corporate responsibility versus personal responsibility.  You stated that some healthier alternatives to food additives have been banned by the FDA.  On the flip side, there are agencies and groups pushing for the ban of trans-fats, soda is schools, and any number of other substances that can be deemed unhealthy.  Is that good or bad?   

Not so much an argument, just a note to think about:
For the most part it seems to me that people are simply reacting the the environment as they always have.  Your bodies are designed to crave fatty sweet things and some people can get beyond that natural reaction.  That's not a societal issue, its a human issue.  Those things that were rare through most of human history are all too common now, and its killing people.  
It actually kind of surprises me that some people can go against instinct and eat healthy and exercise regularly.  Isn't free will wonderful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok, all Latin aside.  I want to know exactly what we are arguing about<br />
because it seems to have gotten confused.<br />
James, you said that Lance and I were using a straw-man fallacy.  That is, that we mis-represented your argument.  If that is the case, then I did not do so intentionally.<br />
Are you simply making a deceleration of value, that you believe in a healthy lifestyle and others should do the same?<br />
Or are you saying that there is something inherently flawed in the current system that requires large-scale social (that is, governmental) action?<br />
Or is there some other option that I&#8217;m leaving out?</p>
<p>My main argument was that this is a complex issue.  Those selling food want us to buy their unhealthy food, and those selling images lead us to want to imitate those images.  These are conflicting forces that cause people some confusion (perhaps those that have examined the situation have escaped this confusion, but that involves a more complex argument).  Then there is the complication of regulation and corporate responsibility versus personal responsibility.  You stated that some healthier alternatives to food additives have been banned by the FDA.  On the flip side, there are agencies and groups pushing for the ban of trans-fats, soda is schools, and any number of other substances that can be deemed unhealthy.  Is that good or bad?   </p>
<p>Not so much an argument, just a note to think about:<br />
For the most part it seems to me that people are simply reacting the the environment as they always have.  Your bodies are designed to crave fatty sweet things and some people can get beyond that natural reaction.  That&#8217;s not a societal issue, its a human issue.  Those things that were rare through most of human history are all too common now, and its killing people.<br />
It actually kind of surprises me that some people can go against instinct and eat healthy and exercise regularly.  Isn&#8217;t free will wonderful.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Lance</title>
		<link>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-44</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:29:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-44</guid>
					<description>I grabbed random latin words from another site.  Hoping that would add weight to my argument by being both confusing and unnecessary, not to mention superfluous, gratuitous, befuddled, and confounded.  Truely a copious cornucopia of conflagration.  Resulting in wild eyed mysticism usually reserved for a fractious meliorist.  As Freud would have undoubtedly  ascertained through careful conscientious mensuration - "Vous êtes un hippie sale."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I grabbed random latin words from another site.  Hoping that would add weight to my argument by being both confusing and unnecessary, not to mention superfluous, gratuitous, befuddled, and confounded.  Truely a copious cornucopia of conflagration.  Resulting in wild eyed mysticism usually reserved for a fractious meliorist.  As Freud would have undoubtedly  ascertained through careful conscientious mensuration - &#8220;Vous êtes un hippie sale.&#8221;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: dclafleur</title>
		<link>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-43</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:10:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-43</guid>
					<description>dude I hope we all are sipping on import beer and smoking pipes while reading this argument, we get any more pretentious and they might give us honorary PhD's</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>dude I hope we all are sipping on import beer and smoking pipes while reading this argument, we get any more pretentious and they might give us honorary PhD&#8217;s
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: James</title>
		<link>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-42</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:04:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-42</guid>
					<description>I'm curious why you accuse us of not reading your post.  I responded to all the points you presented, what more do you want?  Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but you asked what a straw man argument was, not how it applied.  And as I just mentioned, in that particular instance I really meant ad hominem (despite the presence of any straw man arguments).  The remark I was referring to was the "hippie" remark, which is definitely an ad hominem.

By the way, where did you find the "nifty" Latin quote?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m curious why you accuse us of not reading your post.  I responded to all the points you presented, what more do you want?  Perhaps I&#8217;m being pedantic, but you asked what a straw man argument was, not how it applied.  And as I just mentioned, in that particular instance I really meant ad hominem (despite the presence of any straw man arguments).  The remark I was referring to was the &#8220;hippie&#8221; remark, which is definitely an ad hominem.</p>
<p>By the way, where did you find the &#8220;nifty&#8221; Latin quote?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Lance</title>
		<link>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-40</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:02:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-40</guid>
					<description>Quidem tu doctus procul dico similis absque pendo.  As for your statement that working-class idealsts exist, they exist in a state of rapid decay.  Given a long enough timeline they will, as with all things be absorbed into their system.  Higher quality work standards is a matter of perspective.  I could go on and on, however no one is actually listening to this.  You're just reading it and formulating a response.  Just as I haven't clicked on your link to the staw man argument explantion.  I asked for an explantion on how it related to your comment.  I didn't ask for a link to another website where someone else has done that for you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Quidem tu doctus procul dico similis absque pendo.  As for your statement that working-class idealsts exist, they exist in a state of rapid decay.  Given a long enough timeline they will, as with all things be absorbed into their system.  Higher quality work standards is a matter of perspective.  I could go on and on, however no one is actually listening to this.  You&#8217;re just reading it and formulating a response.  Just as I haven&#8217;t clicked on your link to the staw man argument explantion.  I asked for an explantion on how it related to your comment.  I didn&#8217;t ask for a link to another website where someone else has done that for you.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: James</title>
		<link>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-39</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 16:34:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-39</guid>
					<description>A quick search for the term straw man brings up a definition quite readily.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument , which is also directly linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

And yes, I suppose I did make an ignoratio elenchi.  I should have said Ad hominem, but the strawman was there too.  But perhaps I'm being too pedantic.

And I suppose, Lance, that I can, with equal validity, interpret your statement as "I'm a filthy neo-con." ?  School yard arguments aside though, I'd have to say that working-class idealists can exist and succeed, but they have to be willing to drag others up to their standards.  And those that refuse to be dragged should be crushed under the higher quality work and standards that we heave upon them.

As for health, moderation is definitely the key.  But as the adage "all things in moderation" would imply, its not as simple an equation as just balancing junk food and healthy food.  Many things such as exercise have to fit in too.  You speak about your eating habits, but a large part of my initial argument was people watching TV and not exercising.  I would have to again argue that this is at least equally important.

Your note about the upper class valuing gluttony and sloth just exemplifies how long this flawed mindset has been around.  Just because something is the norm does not make it right though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A quick search for the term straw man brings up a definition quite readily.  See <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument' rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument</a> , which is also directly linked from <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy' rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy</a></p>
<p>And yes, I suppose I did make an ignoratio elenchi.  I should have said Ad hominem, but the strawman was there too.  But perhaps I&#8217;m being too pedantic.</p>
<p>And I suppose, Lance, that I can, with equal validity, interpret your statement as &#8220;I&#8217;m a filthy neo-con.&#8221; ?  School yard arguments aside though, I&#8217;d have to say that working-class idealists can exist and succeed, but they have to be willing to drag others up to their standards.  And those that refuse to be dragged should be crushed under the higher quality work and standards that we heave upon them.</p>
<p>As for health, moderation is definitely the key.  But as the adage &#8220;all things in moderation&#8221; would imply, its not as simple an equation as just balancing junk food and healthy food.  Many things such as exercise have to fit in too.  You speak about your eating habits, but a large part of my initial argument was people watching TV and not exercising.  I would have to again argue that this is at least equally important.</p>
<p>Your note about the upper class valuing gluttony and sloth just exemplifies how long this flawed mindset has been around.  Just because something is the norm does not make it right though.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: dclafleur</title>
		<link>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-38</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:55:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.neutral-evil.net/2007/02/americans-love-being-fat/#comment-38</guid>
					<description>I'd say it is more of an association fallacy, however, by expressing that you indicated a straw man fallacy James has inadvertently created an ignoratio elenchi.  As for working class idealists they exist, frequently so, they just usually find they are not happy with their work situation.  As for a fat culture I think a lot of it stems from us making poor decisions on the basis of value.  We eat things we should not eat from the basis of it being a good value.  You hear it all the time with such expressions as, "the restaurant is pricy but the portions are big" or "you get a lot for what you pay" by indicating some sort of value, we rationalize that it is ok to consume such large portions.  By not consuming the larger portions, we lose some part of the value.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d say it is more of an association fallacy, however, by expressing that you indicated a straw man fallacy James has inadvertently created an ignoratio elenchi.  As for working class idealists they exist, frequently so, they just usually find they are not happy with their work situation.  As for a fat culture I think a lot of it stems from us making poor decisions on the basis of value.  We eat things we should not eat from the basis of it being a good value.  You hear it all the time with such expressions as, &#8220;the restaurant is pricy but the portions are big&#8221; or &#8220;you get a lot for what you pay&#8221; by indicating some sort of value, we rationalize that it is ok to consume such large portions.  By not consuming the larger portions, we lose some part of the value.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
