Seriously people, what the fuck? Here I expected from the title and OP for there to be reasonable discussion, yet what I have found is most people being moronic; stating ignorance and falsehoods as fact, plugging their ears going "La la la la la! I can't hear you!" to people and sources they disagree with, making gross false equivalences, complete misunderstanding of fairly simple English and simple concepts, and horrendous attempts at comparisons. What the bloody hell, people?
A person stating facts, reminding people of their education to illustrate why they understand the topic, and backing both up with simple arguments and sourced evidence is
not a person being arrogant. Telling people who do not have education and are messing even the simplest of concepts such education imparts that they are wrong and
why they are wrong, again with simple argumentation and sourced evidence, is not being condescending. Deriding an expert for correcting people who don't even have the most basic level of understanding of the topic they are an expert in is pretty much the definition of moronic, especially when you deride them as much if not more than they have expressed frustration at the ignorant for stating falsehoods as "True Factsâ„¢"; which, by the way, is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy.
For those who are talking about rule breaking, let me make something clear. Yes, there is a rule saying people should be civil, however we
also have a rule about responding to the arguments made in a thread. Jumping at strawmen and blaming someone else for creating them is not only not responding to the arguments that were made, it's also far from being civil. I would also say citing the rules to a person as a form of "threat" (or what have you) for the display understandable annoyance
when there's already 2 mods in the thread and
another that posts were run past prior to posting is very questionable itself, especially when it is very easy to PM a mod or direct attention to a possible violation even in the thread itself where it's known mods will see it.
Latest example in this thread:
but not when some ignorant layperson thinks he knows more than somebody who fucking studies this shit.
QED. You are attacking someone, not their ideas but the person. Including appeal to authority for extra oomph.
I only see attacking the behaviour, and thus the ideas themselves, not the person. He didn't say "you're wrong because you're a doo-doo-head," it was closer to "you're a doo-doo-head and wrong because of this evidence right here *smacks down a source*". Huge fucking difference which is vital to know if something is an ad hominem or not. I also do not see an appeal to authority there beyond "this is what actual authorities have said on the matter and these are the reasons why, so that those who aren't authorities can also understand it". Seriously, it's like saying it's an appeal to authority to rely on a professional basketball coach for what the rules of basketball are instead of a physicist.
Now, if you can otherwise demonstrate how such fallacies apply to his argument then please show me, though I also request that you use proper argumentation to do so because I find it very hard to accept criticism of an argument when said criticism can't even hold up to itself.
Could Vene be nicer in his retorts? Yes, he could, but he starts off that way and resorts to snarking when it has been clearly demonstrated that nicety is wasted and undeserved. I agree that makes it a bit abrasive, but being abrasive is sometimes the only way to get a person to realise what one is
actually saying.
Lithp: Semantics are important when they change the very core of an argument; you know, the baseline concept.
And now to add something to the original discussion: I found a study (
here) showing that it is actually not the poor who are being hit the hardest with the increase in obesity. I also want to reiterate that not all calories are equal. It was something I grew up with my entire life as a simple fact as my father was insulin dependent diabetic, so I keep being surprised that people don't realise the enormity of difference in the type of calories.
Yes, carbohydrates are technically sugars, but as far as diets (in the technical sense, not just the new-fad-to-lose-weight-fast type) are concerned there is a large difference between carbohydrates and simple sugars. You will not get diabetes from eating lots of pasta (the noodles) or rice, as they are loaded with carbohydrates which take a bit of energy to break down into simple sugars for later use, and also spreads out the intake of the broken down sugars. Straight simple sugars come in the time frame taken to eat them and require no energy to be broken down like carbohydrates do. This is why after eating a candy bar you'll feel the energy quickly, but eating spaghetti will give you good, long lasting energy even if it takes a short while before you feel it kick in.
As Vene already posted a study about, it's not just the amount of calories but the
type that's important. 200 calories of sugar is vastly different than 200 calories of protein, especially as that protein is also used to create muscle and other tissue whereas excess sugars are stored as fat. Even if for whatever reason it was to put the same amount of weight on a person it would manifest differently because the calories are
not the same.
Oh, and for those who complained about high fructose corn syrup instead of "sugar" sugar: they are the same thing and everyone who's bothered to read even the OP has no reason not to know such as it was directly stated how and why they are essentially the same.
