Page 5 of 5 First 12345
  1. #41

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    71
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrapper View Post
    Blaming sugar for fatness is intellectually identical to blaming a firearm for a murder. Very un-Phrost-like!
    Nice post (I agree with your arguments), but bad example. Firearms are responsible for murder. Rates of interpersonal violence are much higher in the UK than in the US (international data puts the US only slightly ahead of Canada in rates of interpersonal violence). However, the US has the highest homicide rate in the Western world because people in the US are much better at killing each other....because they have guns.

    You get angry with someone in the UK or Canada you have to rely on less effective means to vent your anger. In the US, you can vent your anger with firearms. So, yes, you CAN blame firearms for murder without a hint of intellectual laziness. Because firearms are the central factor explaining high homicide in the US vs other more violent western countries.

    I know what you're going to say. Blah blah blah (insert gun debate stuff). I have no opinion about the gun debate in the US (I don't care....I live in Canada). But I do have a lot of info and data, and people need to get their facts in order.

    Hijack over. I love sugar.

  2. #42
    Scrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Dayville, Connecticut, United States
    Posts
    4,290
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by McChaos View Post
    Nice post (I agree with your arguments), but bad example. Firearms are responsible for murder. Rates of interpersonal violence are much higher in the UK than in the US (international data puts the US only slightly ahead of Canada in rates of interpersonal violence). However, the US has the highest homicide rate in the Western world because people in the US are much better at killing each other....because they have guns.

    You get angry with someone in the UK or Canada you have to rely on less effective means to vent your anger. In the US, you can vent your anger with firearms. So, yes, you CAN blame firearms for murder without a hint of intellectual laziness. Because firearms are the central factor explaining high homicide in the US vs other more violent western countries.

    I know what you're going to say. Blah blah blah (insert gun debate stuff). I have no opinion about the gun debate in the US (I don't care....I live in Canada). But I do have a lot of info and data, and people need to get their facts in order.

    Hijack over. I love sugar.
    I have covered all of that here :
    http://www.bullshido.net/forums/show...32#post2744632
    and i promise you, as long as the western world includes Mexico and South America, the US will never even be a contender.

    To the topic at hand!

    And blaming sugar for being fat is exactly the same tactic as blaming guns for murders. In both cases you put the responsibility for an individual's choice on an inanimate object. It even hold up under your reasoning. Ergo:

    "Firearms are responsible for murder.." (Your quote)

    Vs. (only changing two words)

    "Sugars are responsible for fatties."

    While both statements are somewhat defensible, neither infers any responsibility for the individual choice involved. For the conditions being discussed ("getting fat" or "getting shot"), both statements imply that the object is at fault, not the executor of the choice. My point (gun control silliness notwithstanding) stands, rhetorically speaking. ("rhetorically speaking!" Hah! I kill me.)

    Your position appears to be the firearms are responsible for murders, but sugar is NOT responsible for fat people. You basically say that fatness is a choice, but homicides are solely determined by the presence of the gun.

    Why are the murderers of the hook but the fatties on it?
    And lo, Kano looked down upon the field and saw the multitudes. Amongst them were the disciples of Uesheba who were greatly vexed at his sayings. And Kano spake: "Do not be concerned with the mote in thy neighbor's eye, when verily thou hast a massive stick in thine ass".

    --Scrolls of Bujutsu: Chapter 5 vs 10-14.

  3. #43
    Permalost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,092
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrapper View Post
    blaming sugar for being fat is exactly the same tactic as blaming guns for murders.
    Its even more similar to when ranch dressing was the douchebag of the month.

  4. #44
    adouglasmhor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Glasgow, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,494
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Permalost View Post
    Its not too hard to plan one's day so you never have to buy drinkable fluid and the fresh piece of trash holding it. Soda vs bottled water is a wasteful argument.
    This post just reminded me to walk to the water cooler in work and fill my 20oz Bubba Keg mug. (Cna I still be a hippy if I have a Bubba Keg?).

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bay area, ca
    Posts
    413
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    As soon as I cut out sugar I burned fat like butter.

    Processed sugar is still a new thing and hasn't been around that long. Fruit sugar came seasonally and has the added benefits.

    We're only supposed to have like 15g of sugar a day and that doesn't even include how most people drink like 5 32g sugar bottles of juice.

    (I'm drinking pink lemonade right now)

Page 5 of 5 First 12345

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO