Nope. Nuh-uh. Nooooooo.

>> ^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..."}

Are they paying that lady to say "nuh uh" baselessly? Couldn't Krystal just add "oh, and by the way some people don't agree with me." at the end of her comment and you get it without paying a second person to say it?

Maybe they actually are paying for the legs.

Yep. That's about it. The pastor probably couldn't be reached for comment, or didn't have the potential to be quits as iconic as this woman. For an news-tainment network pandering to the masses with limited capacity for independent critical thought, I think this interview was the right choice. If it had been NPR or the CBC, I would've been disappointed.>> ^hpqp:

Of course, it's not pastor Worley's statements that are stupid and homophobic beyond belief, it is just that the evil manipulators at CNN trawled through all the intelligent and ethical defenders of the pastor's stance to find the one pearl who would misrepresent him and his ideas the most. Nothing to do with the content of what she's defending, nuh-uh.
_{edit: reworded to give the pastor's congregation the benefit of the doubt}>> ^messenger:
She was probably hand-picked for her stupidity and accent so Cooper could humiliate her and make her the poster child for homophobes. This is CNN, remember, not an actual news organization.>> ^bobknight33:
What a poor interview. This should have been with someone who had the intellectual capability to have this discussion. Where was the Pastor, Deacon or such who could have properly defended, justified the statements from the sermon.

If she was to represent any one else on any other topic she would have been just as bad.

She was railroaded for the pleasure of CNN and its audience.
That's not news that abuse.

>> ^schlub:

Pretty much the same thing as this:
http://videosift.com/video/Skyrim-is-far-too-Cheesy


Nuh-uh, that one totally doesn't have a ninja ice troll in it.

I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!

In reply to this comment by MarineGunrock:
Nuh-uh! You're stupid in YOUR face!


In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
This is my thousandth comment. I think you're stupid in your face.

Nuh-uh! You're stupid in YOUR face!


In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
This is my thousandth comment. I think you're stupid in your face.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It was definitely intentional..you can see he is chuckling to himself before he does it. And the mom is saying "mean daddy", not oh jeez daddy. He obviously enjoys terrorizing his kid.
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
You know how you can tell this is obviously NOT intentional? He hugs the kid when she starts crying and the mother's reaction, "Oh jeez, Daddy!". Those are pretty clear indicators that they didn't expect the reaction they got from the kid.



Nuh uh

You're not getting the message. "Rights" are things the government has no authority to restrict. Such things include life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. However, some 'rights' also come with inherent restrictions in which some people are "priveledged" to participate in the process, and some are not. In order for people to have the priveledge of joining in some of these so-called "rights" they must jump hoops. There is nothing new, unusual, or wrong with that.

Guns. You've got the right to bear arms. But you've still got to get a permit, buy a weapon, present identification, and jump a bunch of other hoops to have the priveledge. Voting is no different. You need to be 18, register, etc... There is nothing odd or restrictive in requiring people to have an ID when they show up to vote any more so than having to present an ID to buy gummint' booze at the State Liquor store.

But when foam-at-the-mouth neolibs start talking about voter ID, they love to cop this self-righteous attitude that voting is a "right" that somehow should have zero limitations. Neolib parleyance is that requiring ID is an infringement on the "right" to vote. No. It isn't. It is a hoop you jump through in order to exercise the PRIVELDEGE of voting. Voting as a right is just a 60,000 foot high concept. Sure universal sufferage is a 'right'. But to have the priveledge of exercising that right you must meet the requirements. Duh. People should not vote just because some jerk in a van promises them a pack of Kools on voting day. Nuh uh.

The only people who should have the priveledge of exercising their voting rights are folks who jump through the proper hoops. IMO that means they have at least 3 months of utility bills with the same address, a valid state issued photo ID, a voter registration card, a birth certificate, and can prove they are legal citizens. Anyone who can't supply that information may have the "right" to vote (60,000 foot level concept) but does not have the PRIVELEDGE of exercising that right until they meet the requirements.

Theist response: Nuh-uh!

our ol' friend peggedbea used to call me a "ginger balls" so I thought it necessary to point out the fact that I'm not...

now that I think about it, it's the equivolent of me saying "nuh-uh"

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
New avatar, I see. Yet all we really know about you is that you're not a ginger balls. The irony there is that we really didn't want to know even that much.

@joedirt, I don't think Mythbusters is trying to cover anything up, their methods compared to this guy are just flawed. If I recall, they deliver the thermite by lighting it on fire in an exposed bucket, losing energy by not having them capped, or continuously moving down. And as for the "Not be allowed for discussion" I think this falls under their "We don't want to show things on T.v. that could be used potentially badly" checkbox. (I.e. they want to do, but aren't allowed, to do a silencer special, because if it's really easy to make a gun silenced, it could be potentially dangerous for the populace to know how)

As for the rest of the video, this guy makes a helluva good argument, moreso then anybody else ever has. It's refreshing to see someone actually prove their facts instead of just basing them on "Nuh uh, it couldn't happen that way.

(snip of BRP profane rant)

Well - if that plunge into logic doesn't lay out the sides then nothing really will.

Look - this isn't difficult. Judaism banned homosexuality under judeic law. Now - those who are not religious would argue that such a standard was established by evil men. Those who believe that God exists & has a plan for his children would accept that these rules ("Commandments" if you will) were established to help the mortal family to know the ins and outs of what God expects his children to do or not do for their own happiness.

So homosexuality was wrong both under Judaic law, and Judaic moral belief. This is not in question except by people who are trying to reverse-engineer history in order to justify their own world views. Christ did not come along and say, "That was wrong". Quite to the contrary. Christ doubled down. Judaic law commmanded people to not commit sexual sin. Christ didn't say, "It's OK now as long as you love each other..." Nuh-uh. Christ said, "He who LOOKETH upon another woman and hath committed adultery in his heart." The lesson is clear. Judeaic law was trying to command & control people with "don't do this" rules. Christ was trying to teach people to not even THINK about doing the wrong thing.

What does that say about homosexuality? People who think Christ or God would be "OK" with it are lying to themselves. Sexual sin is sin and needs to be forsaken. Period. That never changed. Christ told the adulteress, "Go thy way and SIN NO MORE". He did not say, "Go thy way and I don't care what you do as long as you love them."

So yes - like ANY moral sin - you can love the sinner and hate the sin and labor to correct it. It doesn't make you a bigot. It doesn't mean you're a hater. It means you see people who need help, and you try to help them.

As far as this chick goes - phht. If she's even LDS (which isn't a given), her argument is full of holes and we've got an actual LDS guy who says she's full of bologna with her claims of "being cast out". Is such a thing possible? You'd have to ask the guys in SLC about that and not this chick. As far as the Mormon church's opposition to Prop 8? I saw that more as a means to prevent a lousy law from happening. The gay community needs to come up with a plan that addresses their wants (equal rights) without stepping on the definition of marriage and protections for those who hold to a traditional view. When that happens they'll find they have a better shot compared to these half-@$$ed bum-rush votes on lousy, flawed legislation.