>> ^scannex:

So your counter to the point of it being a behavior, is that it is term applied as the result of a series of behaviors which is a combination of over-eating and lack of exercise?
You must be kidding.
And sorry I have to put words in your mouth above, because aside from divine intervention I am not sure what mysterious factors cause one to be obese unless you are referring to genetic disorders/thyroid problems. Have fun finding a source on what % of obese Americans that covers.
It is behavioral, and its remedy is behavioral. I certainly will not say its an EASY behavior to modify (see previous arguments on leptin/dopamine), but you need to deal with it.
Also regarding what is impressionable you are simply incorrect. If you believe a child with two overweight parents that is the result of those parents having an idle lifestyle and providing garbage food for their kids isnt impactful youre dead wrong.
But here you go, some backup for that concept. From the AACAP
No one is advocating mocking is the right thing to do. And if you think this guys letter came from a place of hate or mockery I suggest you reread it. There really is no indication of that to me. It comes from a place of concern, even if that is misguided. You want to crucify this guy for trying to (perhaps poorly) encourage this woman to lose weight and that really isn't the right ethic either.

_{I realised why your comments annoyed me so much: they remind me of those MRA-holes who try to defend the missteps and/or bile of privileged/sexist people and then see them as being persecuted or "witchhunted". I can only hope I am wrong in seeing a connection.}

To the substance: you completely miss my point, go after strawmen, and then try to defend the unethical while falsely accusing the anchor and myself of persecuting a person (instead of criticising a... you guessed it, behaviour).

Yes, certain behaviour causes and/or aggravates obesity, but do you see her glamourously binge-eating junkfood while telling the news? Unlike a meth addict, there are plenty of overweight people who are overweight of no fault of their own. In fact, the example you give about obese parents having a higher chance of having obese children supports my point, not yours. Children of obese parents have a higher risk of being obese genetically, as well as environmentally, and that has nothing to do with imitating the parents' behaviour (but it's their fault, right? They should just exercise and not eat what their parents feed them, right?). Of course the parents who feed their children junkfood are responsible for their child's obesity, but what does that have to do with an overweight woman being on TV? Not to mention that even that can be more complex, since there are socio-economic factors, what with the US's terrible education system and the fact that its cheapest high-calorie food (i.e. what poor/hungry people will buy) is 98% corn-syrup (yes, I made that stat up, but the point remains). Finally, obesity can be a side-product of mental health issues / eating disorders (but then maybe you're the kind of ignorant douche who'd tell people with depression to just stop wallowing in self-pity and be happy; I hope not).

You go on in your second comment to, on your own admission, redefine what a behaviour is so it can suit your argument. Say the following phrase, out loud if need be, to realise how ridiculous your argument is:

"The woman on the TV is behaving/being overweight/fat/obese". See what I mean?

Finally, you accuse her of "wanting to crucify the guy". Did you even read my points 1) & 2) above (you know, the ones you ignored in your answer)? The "guy" is not being attacked (you'll note he has been left anonymous), what he is saying/doing is. His letter is being taken as an example to call out a certain kind of behaviour, one which is rampant in our society, and doing much harm. Whether his letter is a well-intentioned yet ignorant expression of misplaced concern (at best, and highly unlikely) or a surreptitious piece of condescending shaming (much more likely*) is irrelevant. It's anti-bullying month, and she's saying "people, don't do this, and here's why".

Your more recent comment is a perfect example of why what she's doing is of utmost importance:

the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.

If what he said was not reprehensible, who cares if it's made public (note once again that no names are named)? Shaming people or projecting one's narrowmindedness on them is all fine, but shhh, don't shed light on it! It's just a private message on the internet, it does no harm! (because we all know that there is no bullying, shaming, sexism, etc. on the internet. Nuh-uh)

When only one side of an exchange says "shhh, don't tell anyone about this, it's private" you usually have a bad situation; and the fact that you would defend the letter-writer and his "right" to not have his error called out does not suggest anything good about your own mindset, either.

In conclusion, it is all the more to this woman's (and her husband's/colleagues') credit that she/they took a "seemingly" (to the thickest out there) innocent letter to expose this form of abuse; a harmful remark need not be shocking or particularly vulgar to leave its mark, and it can even come from good intentions. Maybe some people watching will realise that the words they themselves speak/write are harmful, even if not intentionally, and will be more aware of it in future, while others might realise that the words they heard/read were not so innocent after all, and that they should stop beating themselves up for feeling guilt/shame/self-hate when in fact they've been being worn down by ignorant and/or hurtful attacks.

_{*It would be quite easy to analyse just how ignorant and condescending this letter is, not to mention borderline sexist (try imagining this person writing the same letter to Chris Christie, for example, replacing "girls" with "boys"). Analysis starter kit for you: "choice/habit/lifestyle", and the cornerstone phrase "Surely you don't..."}

Your views are inconsistent because you're suggesting her obesity is somehow impactful on others. If it's not that then your suggesting you're concerned for her health. If you're so concerned for her health (or others) then what about her mental health (or ours)? Arguably the most important form of health. You already admitted there is no polite way to tell a stranger that is probably already aware, that their weight is a health concern. I don't see how promoting forwardness with disregard to one's reaction/ feelings is any bit healthier. Not to mention the whole bully awareness month - which this is just a guess, but, doesn't that specifically entail "we" as a society passing stronger consideration for others feelings?

This is where we need to draw the line on the whole obesity/ drug addict comparison. There is NO NEED to throw tough love at an overweight person. Even if you succeed in pushing them to lose weight - you're changing the very foundation of personal relationships. Where does the bully draw the line at school? "Stop being so dorky?". Oh and I'm not a fan of letting our children carry such moral burdens. Their parents should lead by example. Lets not build a world where people push one another into choices even if they are good for them. Let's let freewill be freewill. If you really want to make a difference - befriend them, get close to them, within the "YOU can say that to me" walls. Actually give a shit about the person and not the idea of people. Stop treating that woman like an negative average in a large container and more like a PERSON.

Problem solved. Become their friend - follow time-tested relationship rules and then, and only then, can you relay such private and impactful information to them.

>> ^scannex:

I am not sure how my argument is nihilistic at all.
I am not sure what mold you think I am promoting, aside from not being in a state which has been, by all available science, deemed to be u healthy. (read: not obese)
I am happy to address where you think my view is inconsistent, can you please elaborate?
Re feeling: I think that is fair, to a point. But to me, the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.
You pretend to care for the health of others yet there is a perverse nihilistic undertone to your entire argument. The only thing in this for you is to point out that "people" should fit a mold that you and your constituents have deemed appropriate. Which furthers strengthens the overall bizarre and inconsistent view you're slinging. Shouldn't your dismissal of common morals/ sensibilities completely free you up from trying to impress or coincide with a particular group? The thing that bugs me the most is that you seem to completely ignore this person's feelings. It's as if, for the purposes of your argument having a body you have obfuscated her feelings or anyone else's for that matter.

I am not sure how my argument is nihilistic at all.
I am not sure what mold you think I am promoting, aside from not being in a state which has been, by all available science, deemed to be u healthy. (read: not obese)

I am happy to address where you think my view is inconsistent, can you please elaborate?

Re feeling: I think that is fair, to a point. But to me, the spectacle this woman made of herself for someone writing her a private communique over the internet does not warrant ANYWHERE near this attention.
She chose to shine a spotlight on something perfectly hidden, for the purpose of, I don't know... you tell me? To stop imaginary bullying (in her case explicitly here)? To not feel bad about being overweight? I really don't know anymore. Its a bizarre reaction to wantonly make a spectacle of someone suggesting you lose weight.

You pretend to care for the health of others yet there is a perverse nihilistic undertone to your entire argument. The only thing in this for you is to point out that "people" should fit a mold that you and your constituents have deemed appropriate. Which furthers strengthens the overall bizarre and inconsistent view you're slinging. Shouldn't your dismissal of common morals/ sensibilities completely free you up from trying to impress or coincide with a particular group? The thing that bugs me the most is that you seem to completely ignore this person's feelings. It's as if, for the purposes of your argument having a body you have obfuscated her feelings or anyone else's for that matter.

>> ^Reefie:

I agree with the principle of his warning. To say that it has become a major concern in the last two weeks is grossly inaccurate, there have been numerous events in the last decade that have not been spotlighted by the media because they have loyalties to a political agenda, or to business customers.

Everyone has their tipping point. I guess he found his in the last 2 weeks.

I agree with the principle of his warning. To say that it has become a major concern in the last two weeks is grossly inaccurate, there have been numerous events in the last decade that have not been spotlighted by the media because they have loyalties to a political agenda, or to business customers.

Typical taxocrat transparency. Water is transparent, right?

Kudos to bareboards, it is not often one of the innumerable corrupt taxocrats gets a spotlight on the sift.

pretty sure that's sweat/heat under the powerful spotlights..>> ^deathcow:

his outfit is mildly atrocious though and can someone explain the cloud emanating from him after 8:40

That guy with the spotlight must get super tired during Chris Rocks shows.

yea growing up here in the deep south me and my brother would catch them using a spotlight, stick and bag.

there was an old black man in town that would buy them 5 dollars a piece, they ate them and he'd skin them and sell the skins.

course my dad was a big hunter and thought it was neat that we found a small part of hunting we could make a little summer money with.

usually after 2 weekends me and my brother would get about 20-30 dollars each for the possums we'd bring the elderly black man and he was always so nice to us.

but he probably made a ton more money with the hides since possum, raccoon hides sell for a lot here in the south, huge market in them.

What anti-gay supporters seem to fail to realize is that the more situations like this get air time. The more it highlights the issue and the more people really start to think about how stupid it is to deny rights to homosexuals. When people go out of their way to impede homosexuals like that cake shop owner did. It highlights their struggle more and more people eventually sympathize with them. On top of it, everyone loves an underdog.

So please, bring it on. Are there any more anti-gay restaurant CEOs out there? any more local store owners denying service to homosexuals? Let them stand up and be heard.

It also highlights how Sarah Palin's time in the spotlight is over. She's irrelevant.

Don't bother patronizing me to gain an ally because I defended you, and then turn around and spew that garbage to other people. That kind of crap is what gives religious people a bad name.

If that's the way you want to see it. Messenger stated that he didn't think fornication was "wrong sex"..that he knew what it was and wasn't..and I said he doesn't know that because he has no insight into spiritual matters. What you think is "garbage" is simply a statement of fact from the Christian perspective.

Truth is absolute, but no one has to be right. It is entirely possible that each viewpoint catches a specific aspect of the truth without the ability to capture it in its entirety, and some viewpoints may not capture any of the truth, and some actually warp the truth. That is in fact what insights from varying points of view do.

It depends on the question. If you ask, what is life, you can have many answers, none of which captures the entire truth. On the question of whether Jesus is God, there is a right answer and a wrong answer.

>> ^heropsycho:
Would have been nice had you not posted to messenger...
"You don't know what wrong sex is, because you have no insight into spiritual matters."
Seriously?!
SERIOUSLY?!?!
Don't bother patronizing me to gain an ally because I defended you, and then turn around and spew that garbage to other people. That kind of crap is what gives religious people a bad name.
"Yet truth isn't relative, it is absolute. It isn't your truth and my truth; there is a truth and someone is right and someone is wrong about it."
Truth is absolute, but no one has to be right. It is entirely possible that each viewpoint catches a specific aspect of the truth without the ability to capture it in its entirety, and some viewpoints may not capture any of the truth, and some actually warp the truth. That is in fact what insights from varying points of view do.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I realize you don't agree with my viewpoint but I thank you for interjecting and putting the spotlight on some of this emptry rhetoric. Personally, I have been on both sides of the fence; I started out as an agnostic. I am in control of what I believe, and I am well aware of what others believe and why; I used to believe the same things for the same reasons. The reason I believe Jesus is God is because He has supernaturally changed my life. What scripture describes will happen has happened to me.
What we are talking about are worldviews, and every worldview is founded upon presuppositions. A worldview is the lens through which you fundamentally perceive and understand reality. Everyone has a worldview. My worldview is Christian theism, whereas many here have an atheistic worldview, rooted in naturalistic materialism. Their God (what explains everything) tends to be science (they like to say its omnipotent), not realizing that science can't even be done without the presupposition of the uniformity of nature. If more people realized what their philosophical presuppositions are, or even that they have presuppositions in the first place, we could have a much better dialogue on these subjects.
>> ^heropsycho:
I'm certainly not siding with him in this. But understand this...
We all eventually choose mental frameworks to help us understand the world. He chose a religious framework. You chose a different one. He's in control of his own mind, just as you are in control of your own. As far as I'm concerned, a choice of framework is not a moral choice. The choice to try to be better and get to the truth is a moral choice. People take different paths to get there. Some people completely discard frameworks and adopt others as they progress. I have no problem with any of that. If you're not making a choice to understand the truth, then I have a problem with it. He's choosing to use a religious framework to get to it. Rock on.
>> ^messenger:
Your religion is controlling your mind.

Would have been nice had you not posted to messenger...

"You don't know what wrong sex is, because you have no insight into spiritual matters."

Seriously?!

SERIOUSLY?!?!

Don't bother patronizing me to gain an ally because I defended you, and then turn around and spew that garbage to other people. That kind of crap is what gives religious people a bad name.

"Yet truth isn't relative, it is absolute. It isn't your truth and my truth; there is *a* truth and someone is right and someone is wrong about it."

Truth is absolute, but no one has to be right. It is entirely possible that each viewpoint catches a specific aspect of the truth without the ability to capture it in its entirety, and some viewpoints may not capture any of the truth, and some actually warp the truth. That is in fact what insights from varying points of view do.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I realize you don't agree with my viewpoint but I thank you for interjecting and putting the spotlight on some of this emptry rhetoric. Personally, I have been on both sides of the fence; I started out as an agnostic. I am in control of what I believe, and I am well aware of what others believe and why; I used to believe the same things for the same reasons. The reason I believe Jesus is God is because He has supernaturally changed my life. What scripture describes will happen has happened to me.
What we are talking about are worldviews, and every worldview is founded upon presuppositions. A worldview is the lens through which you fundamentally perceive and understand reality. Everyone has a worldview. My worldview is Christian theism, whereas many here have an atheistic worldview, rooted in naturalistic materialism. Their God (what explains everything) tends to be science (they like to say its omnipotent), not realizing that science can't even be done without the presupposition of the uniformity of nature. If more people realized what their philosophical presuppositions are, or even that they have presuppositions in the first place, we could have a much better dialogue on these subjects.

>> ^heropsycho:
I'm certainly not siding with him in this. But understand this...
We all eventually choose mental frameworks to help us understand the world. He chose a religious framework. You chose a different one. He's in control of his own mind, just as you are in control of your own. As far as I'm concerned, a choice of framework is not a moral choice. The choice to try to be better and get to the truth is a moral choice. People take different paths to get there. Some people completely discard frameworks and adopt others as they progress. I have no problem with any of that. If you're not making a choice to understand the truth, then I have a problem with it. He's choosing to use a religious framework to get to it. Rock on.
>> ^messenger:
Your religion is controlling your mind.

I realize you don't agree with my viewpoint but I thank you for interjecting and putting the spotlight on some of this emptry rhetoric. Personally, I have been on both sides of the fence; I started out as an agnostic. I am in control of what I believe, and I am well aware of what others believe and why; I used to believe the same things for the same reasons. The reason I believe Jesus is God is because He has supernaturally changed my life. What scripture describes will happen has happened to me.

What we are talking about are worldviews, and every worldview is founded upon presuppositions. A worldview is the lens through which you fundamentally perceive and understand reality. Everyone has a worldview. My worldview is Christian theism, whereas many here have an atheistic worldview, rooted in naturalistic materialism. Their God (what explains everything) tends to be science (they like to say its omnipotent), not realizing that science can't even be done without the presupposition of the uniformity of nature. If more people realized what their philosophical presuppositions are, or even that they have presuppositions in the first place, we could have a much better dialogue on these subjects.



>> ^heropsycho:
I'm certainly not siding with him in this. But understand this...
We all eventually choose mental frameworks to help us understand the world. He chose a religious framework. You chose a different one. He's in control of his own mind, just as you are in control of your own. As far as I'm concerned, a choice of framework is not a moral choice. The choice to try to be better and get to the truth is a moral choice. People take different paths to get there. Some people completely discard frameworks and adopt others as they progress. I have no problem with any of that. If you're not making a choice to understand the truth, then I have a problem with it. He's choosing to use a religious framework to get to it. Rock on.
>> ^messenger:
Your religion is controlling your mind.

There's no point in getting into it, because it's tiresome, long-winded and probably futile. But sometimes when I see people wanking on about how shit Obama and the state of affairs in the US is, I want to bellow from the rooftops, "YOU THINK YOU'VE GOT IT BAD??????" I despair danny, half the time I don't know what to think. I'm thinking about retreating back into my bubble...

Having said that, I'm so glad you're up for using your vote this time, too. This is what needs to be pushed forward now, people using their votes to bolster the other parties, bring them into the spotlight so that people at least consider other options. The Labour/Cons/Dems need some competition, they need to be put in a position where they have to TRY HARDER! We simply cannot survive with the choices we've got now. Well we can, but I'd rather fucking not!
In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Yogi:
WOW...still regret that I voted for him, but he's a knowledgeable guy.

Hey mate, don't worry about it, you did the right thing, something had to keep the republicans out. I urge you to do it again.

No I didn't. You don't choose the lesser of two evils, you make the system work and produce better results. Obama is a war criminal.

I agree, so I guess a non-vote would have been in order, considering your two-party system. However, I like to look at the silver linings and in my opinion, your vote ensured that things didn't get as bad as they probably would have had McCain/Palin gotten in to power. And, all leaders are war criminals, or just criminals...

I've never voted in my life, because I refuse to pick the best of a bad bunch... but I will be using my vote next election tactically, because until other parties have a chance in hell, we're all doomed.


One day we're gonna find out we're long lost twins or something @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/alien_concept" title="member since February 14th, 2008" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#00ffa2">alien_concept..

I've not voted either, ever. I detest the system, i think the voting system and potentially democracy is flawed or limited and we'll end up in a species-rut because of it, working against each other until we run out of resources and die.

But i know i can't sit here complaining about the rich fucking manor-born tories stealing our country from under us if i didn't help to keep them out. I know me and everyone like me is responsible for them getting in.

I should have at least spoiled my paper or been more active in my protest if i wanted to protest the system in that way.

I was hoping the riots were the start of something. Change has to come from the youth and i suppose soon i won't be in that category anymore!

>> ^kevingrr:

@ghark
1 - I'm not sure which swipe of Chris Hedges you are referring to. If it is in regard to the Moral Landscape I can only comment that Hedges takes every opportunity to inject himself into the spotlight. Having read the Moral Landscape I can say that the ideas Harris presents CAN be challenged by legitimate thinkers, of which Hedges is not.
Hedges game has been to misrepresent Harris' point of view as written in End of Faith. I would go so far as to call Hedges an all out liar. See my post in this thread:

2 - Where here is Sam blindly racist? He states that acts of terror are more likely to be carried out by young Muslim men than by 5 year old girls or grandmothers.
If I said that black athletes are more likely to be basketball players and white athletes are more likely to be baseball players would that make me racist? Because in terms of professional sports that simply IS the case. Note I am not saying WHY that is the case - I am simply saying it is and the statistics prove it.
As I have said before Sam is not racist, but he is honest about who is most likely to have some bad ideas and he does not like bad ideas.
3. Sam is not a pacifist but he is not a warmonger either. As I listened to the entirety of the interview I noted he had a very nuanced idea of when war, or physical violence of any kind, is justified.
One last link regarding Hedges:
Here


Shouldn't the definition of terrorism (of which there are many) be carefully examined before making that statement? I assume you are using the 'American mainstream media' version, which of course means, an act in which a colored person with a beard tries to inflict injury or death on other (usually white) people. If the definition is not looked at with mainstream-media-tinted spectacles then it would not be a stretch to say that the 105,000+ documented Iraqi civilian casualties since 2003 were caused by American (and allied troops) terrorism. Political and resource motivated civilian slaughter on a massive scale (and on foreign soil) sounds very terrorist-like to me. Using this line of logic, would it not make more statistical sense to worry about young to middle aged white males having access to military training than scanning middle aged Muslim men at airports.

My point is not to blame the US troops, Australian troops were also involved, my point is simply that someone of Harris' intellect should be above the simple fear mongering and use of blatant misleading generalizations that he's demonstrating in this video. He was one of my hero's for a while there, and seeing him for what he truly seems to be leaves me a bit hollow inside.

As far as Hedges goes, he seems to be on the mark most of the time, and is an excellent speaker, however I thought his shots at Harris were pretty poor form (during his book launch) because it just seemed to be a blatant publicity stunt, so I agree with you on that to a degree.

Please take in mind My BS meter couldn't handle more than about 25-30 mins of the video, and as @LukinStone mentions, Harris explains some of his comments in more detail later in the video, I just couldn't make it that far unfortunately. Most of what I was hearing was self-gratification, "a large American city has about a 50% chance of having a nuclear bomb set off in it within the next decade or so", racist comments and some war mongering, there's only so much I can take