h a l f b a k e r yStrap *this* to the back of your cat.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
As I creep slowly toward early middle age, I am happy to
report that I have the body of a Greek god. Less happily,
however, that god is Silenus.
There is some speculation that dieting can reduce those
annoying extra ounces of bodyfat, but dieting between
meals seems ineffective. Equally,
excercise is widely
touted, but I need hardly say more on that topic.
So.
MaxCo. is pleased to announce that its Transdermal
Lipolysis Apparatus is undergoing trials even as we
speak.
The TLA looks a little like a large torch, with mains and
data cables
snaking out of the back end. In its body is an extremely
powerful infrared generator, and some other gubbins.
The
front end is a lens (other lenses are contained within the
body).
In operation, the TLA fires a brief burst of intense
infrared, which emerges uniformly from the front lens.
This lens is, of course, placed against the skin over the
offending fat; a transparent gel provides good optical
connectivity between the lens and the skin, whether
hairy
or smooth.
Infrared of the right wavelength (than which we would
use
no other) can pass quite well through skin and
penetrates
into subcutaneous tissue. As it passes through the skin,
the
TLA's light is distributed evenly over about ten square
centimetres, and the pulse is not sufficient to cause
more
than a gentle warming.
However, the cunning lenses of the TLA cause the
infrared
to be brought to a focus beneath the skin. Because flesh
is
not very good, optically, this focus is only approximate.
Nevertheless, the 10-20% of the light which penetrates
that
far is brought to a fuzzy focal point within the fat tissue.
Depth of penetration is controllable by adjusting the
focussing of the TLA's lens. On the more advanced
model,
an ultrasound transducer is built into the head of the
device, so that the local thickness of the fat layer can be
judged and focus adjusted accordingly.
One pulse, therefore, is sufficient to heat a fuzzy ball of
fat cells to around 50°C for a few moments. This is
sufficient to kill them. Since there are few nerve
endings
in fat, no pain is felt.
Clearly, frying all of your fat cells at once would be very
undesirable, releasing large quantities of cellular debris
into the circulation. Therefore, it is important to space
the treatment out over many sessions, with each session
killing off small, dispersed pockets of fat cells. For this
reason, the head of the TLA includes an optical mouse-
like
sensor to track its movements, so that the pulses are
triggered at evenly-spaced points. The operator need
only
slide the TLA back and forth across the skin, until a full
matrix of points have been zapped for that session.
The net result, after many sessions, will be the
elimination
of a large proportion of the fat cells. Although the
remaining cells will tend to enlarge as they absorb more
fat, this effect does not offset the benefits of
eliminating
most of them.
Go Swimming Instead
http://www.krudkutter.com/
This stuff (and some competitor products) is nontoxic and can "defat" the hands. If you use it bare-handed enough, it will pull fat right out of your skin. So, if you go swimming in a vat of the stuff.... [Vernon, Jul 26 2012]
Noninvasive fat removal
http://www.kevinmd....lastic-surgery.html
[Loris, Jul 26 2012]
Good and virtuous lumps
http://allysaville....w-these-quick-tips/
[doctorremulac3, Jul 29 2012]
Bad and sinful lumps
http://en.wikipedia...le:Fat_bastard.jpeg
[doctorremulac3, Jul 29 2012]
rabbit on a skateboard
http://www.youtube....watch?v=KFHlkI4wGX0
No more eating rabbit for doctorremulac3 [Loris, Aug 02 2012]
hypocrit - better definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrit
[Loris, Aug 05 2012, last modified Aug 06 2012]
[link]
|
| |
//frying all of your fat cells at once// Excellent idea... So
it's a type of George Forman grill where you use your own
fat cells. [+] It's a winner for me. |
|
| |
But the smell of cooking bacon makes me hungry which
causes me to eat more. |
|
| |
[+] //Silesus // Sp:Silenus |
|
| |
Etymologically related to "Silly Putty." |
|
| |
[MB], I share your pain. There is something about middle-aging that allows capital gains to show up in the midsection. |
|
| |
p.s. I kept reading TLA as "Three Letter Acronym;" perhaps you could choose a title leading to a less frequently used TLA. |
|
| |
Hmmmm … intense transdermal infrared …
hmmm … this idea may have other non-
medical applications … |
|
| |
So, what levels might be required to cause
incapacitation, or lethal injury? We are
merely curious, that's all … no ulterior
motive … |
|
| |
//other non- medical applications // I'm pretty sure
you could do non-invasive vasectomies this way,
which would result in a sort of transgenerational
incapacitation. |
|
| |
//I have the body of a Greek god// - where do you keep this body? I assume Buchanan Towers has a morgue? |
|
| |
We do, but they're both full at present. Some
guests are so difficult to get rid of. |
|
| |
Won't this just make you all dimply? |
|
| |
I'd be a bit concerned about the fat globs being released with this method. |
|
| |
Also, 2fries dimple concerns. |
|
| |
However, I did a quick google and found the linked page, which refers to 'Zerona'. Which looks like it might be as you describe. |
|
| |
Have you considered liposuction? Core all the slop out, make good... |
|
| |
No. The pockets of killed cells are maybe a couple
of millimetres in diameter, but quite deep. The
optical mouse on the head of the TLA ensures that
the pockets killed in any one treatment are evenly
spread, and there's enough cell motility to
redistribute the remaining cells between
treatments, so there should be a fairly even loss of
fat cells over the course of several treatments. |
|
| |
//Zerona// Well, I'll be damned. If I'd known this
would work I wouldn't have posted it. I foresee a
considerable increase in the sales of mid-power
635nm laser diodes. |
|
| |
// I foresee a considerable increase in the sales of mid-power 635nm laser diodes. // |
|
| |
We forsee an addition to combat triage training ... |
|
| |
Problem with removing fat with tactical weapons is your body just puts it someplace else. You need to get strategic. |
|
| |
Don't eat wheat, rice, sugar or starch, anything that's exclusively post agricultural revolution, specifically super concentrated carbs. We've evolved to eat stuff we can find hunting and foraging, not stuff we grow, so meat and veggies are what we're designed for. Think: "Can I kill this or pick it off a plant and put it in my mouth?" I'll point out to vegetarians that we have fangs to puncture the hides of our prey, the cusped or "canine" teeth. We also have a digestive tract designed to operate on animal or vegetable matter as food. This gave us the evolutionary edge to survive any climate conditions and conquer the planet. It's one reason why cows work for us and not the reverse. If there are those out there that are disgusted at the thought of having ascended from omnivorous hunting and foraging animals that would eat anything that wouldn't eat them first, oh well. Might want to search for self worth someplace other than your dinner plate. |
|
| |
Anyway, once you've dumped the carb bomb based diet, find some strenuous activity that you enjoy. We also evolved to go out and kill or gather things to eat so we're designed to move around, but you'll have to find something you like doing or else you won't stick to it. If you've got some kind of mental defect that allows you to enjoy running on a treadmill an hour a day, you're in luck. Otherwise you'll have to find a series of strenuous activities that you actually enjoy. |
|
| |
But you're not out of the fat woods yet. As soon as your body gets good at a particular exercise you stop burning calories by doing it. Then the fat loss benefits stop. At that point you'll have to do something else. The good news is, you'll probably be bored with that particular exercise at that point anyway. |
|
| |
And don't bother with calorie counting. If cutting out 300 calories a day would result in permanent weight loss it would also result in eventual starvation and death. Your metabolism will simply adjust to the deficit and you'll have less energy. Conversly, if you exercise more you'll need more food so spend more time eating good food and exercising and less time sitting on your butt doing calorie calculations. |
|
| |
So eat meat to get your fat and protein and vegetables to get your carbs. Then find fun strenuous physical activities to do on a regular basis and change those activities regularly as well. |
|
| |
I've personally had the body shape of both Buddha and Jesus at various times in my life. It's taken a lot of trial and error for me to get trimmed up to where I can go running on California beaches without shirt nor shame. |
|
| |
Wow, that's the longest post I've ever written in my life. Just started typing and sort of zoned out. When I woke up, viola! A new record. |
|
| |
That sort of business is exactly what I was hoping
to avoid. |
|
| |
Although it's true that fat will be diverted into
other fat cells, there is still a net benefit to
removing fat cells. The number of fat cells (and
their distribution) is pretty much fixed in
childhood. Thereafter, the more fat cells you
have, the more your body tends to store fat, and
the harder it is to maintain sveltness. |
|
| |
If you eliminate most of your fat cells, the
remainder will compensate up to a point (by
storing more fat and hence getting bigger), but
only up to a point. |
|
| |
I'm quite sure that you can carve your body into shape with invasive and semi invasive means and I don't have a problem with that. However if you want to look like mixed-martial-arts-Jesus with a crewcut like I do, my method is probably a better bet. |
|
| |
Besides, Max, don't you wan't to be able to "kick ass" if necessary? You never know when you might run into an ass that needs kicking. That's something you can only get by picking heavy things up and putting them down and repeating this process for ever and ever until you die. If the magesty and glory of picking up something heavy doesn't excite you, do it while listening to audio books or podcasts like I do. That'll keep that pesky brain busy so it won't constantly question the value of spending hours picking up pieces of iron. It's like throwing a dog a bone to get it off your leg. |
|
| |
Remember kids, whether you're a man or a woman, your worth in this society is based on the size and arrangement of lumps on your body. (see links) |
|
| |
I have men who kick arses on my behalf. I do take
your point. However, the equation "No pain, no
gain" suggests the other equalities "A little pain, a
little gain", which pretty much sits squarely in my
comfort zone. |
|
| |
Believe me Max, if they had a pill to put the body's lumps in the right place (and I'm sure they eventually will) do you think I'd be working my butt off at the track and the gym? Hell to the no. |
|
| |
Easiest way to drop a few pounds is lopping off the bad habbits like soda and a bread based diet if you're not into the exercise thing. |
|
| |
There's also a lot to be said for accepting who you are despite your body's particular lump profile. |
|
| |
Ok, I've hogged this anno string long enough. |
|
| |
Max, my impression is that you don't want to give up eating nice things and don't want to do the unpleasant exercise thing. You would quite like to lie back, relax and have your weight go down by itself. |
|
| |
Have you considered giving blood? It must be calorie negative (particularly if you can avoid the bourbons they offer you at the end of the process). |
|
| |
[Loris], you are right, of course, but does that not
apply to everyone? |
|
| |
Actually, I just want the metabolism I had when I
was a mere snip of a lord. Garbage in, Greek God
out. |
|
| |
Well, to get back to that more youthful metabolism
your choices are exercise, meth or a time machine. |
|
| |
If you hear about some other way let me know. |
|
| |
//meth// is that -anol, crystal- or a misprint for
maths? |
|
| |
Oddly, although metabolic middle-age changes are
anecdotally very well known, I don't know of any
serious investigation thereinto. Someone should at
least look at changes in gene expression. You can't
really rely on evolution to have done anything right
once you turn 40. |
|
| |
Remember, from an evolutionary standpoint as far
as the human body's programming is concerned, at
45 you're duty to the tribe is to die and get out of
the way. At that point you've already sired ten or
so kids, two or three who survived, you're
worthless as a hunter, your teeth are all gone and
you're a waste of the tribe's resources. The bonus
half century beyond that is a product
of the agricultural and scientific revolutions and
it's a pretty good deal. It's typical human behavior
to complain about the details of this deal, such as
not looking and feeling like we did in our
20s so eventually we'll get that ironed out as well. |
|
| |
We've just started with this science thing.
Eventually we'll cure aging and even death.
Then we'll have to get busy moving beyond Earth
to hold everybody but that's a long way off. We've
only recently gotten bored with the digital watch
stage of science so there's lots of work to do. In
the mean time if you want to look and feel
good run around in circles and lift pieces of metal
and put them back down over and over again until
you feel bad. |
|
| |
//from an evolutionary standpoint as far as the
human body's programming is concerned, at 45
you're duty to the tribe is to die and get out of
the way.// |
|
| |
Current thinking is more along the lines that
ageing isn't programmed to happen, it's just not
programmed not to happen. Any mutations that
keep you youthful for longer (even if they don't
'cost' anything) never had the chance to be
selected for, because your chances of dying of
disease or injury or starvation in any given year
were pretty high, until a few thousand years ago,
regardless of how youthful you were. |
|
| |
To take an analogy, conserving WWII fighter planes
is difficult because they weren't well protected
against corrosion - there was no point, and
rustproofing them wouldn't have helped them
survive the war. |
|
| |
Sorry, bit of a digression there. |
|
| |
Not a digression at all. WW2 planes were designed
to do a particular task and so were we. The
aircraft are ill suited to last the coming millennia
just like we're not expected to do anything
beyond doing our little part to expand the species
and then flaming out. We were also designed to
cycle through our lives quickly enough to let
evolution happen at a pace quick enough to
match the changing environments that shape
our latest model. If we lived for a ten thousand
years
nothing would ever get done evolution wise. |
|
| |
That's the big difference between us and the
planes. (besides the fact that they fly and have 50
caliber machine guns in their wings) Our design
has always been and probably always will be in a
state of change. At the point that eating,
breeding and dying doesn't satisfy the collective
aspirations of the species we'll do what we always
have. We'll change the world and eventually the
universe around us to match our vision of the
future. |
|
| |
This is all just starting to happen. There are
people who were born when there were no motor
cars who saw the first man land on the moon. Our
great, great, great grandchildren will probably
have a choice of planets to live on. Of course I
mean like I have the choice between living in Palo
Alto or on a private island in the Bahamas but you
know what I mean. The possibility for the chosen
few will be there. |
|
| |
// We'll change the world and eventually the universe around us to match our vision of the future. // |
|
| |
Well, the Universe will be changed to fit "a" vision of the future - not necessarily the one espoused by your species ... <snigger> |
|
| |
// The possibility for the chosen few will be there. // |
|
| |
Indeed they are. Come and join us ... |
|
| |
//the chosen few// If not us, then when? If not
here, then who? And if not now, then where? |
|
| |
Well, speaking of questions like "If not what,
why?" etc. I'd say us here and now is our best bet.
If we sit around too long we may get complacent
while technology increasingly does everything for
us. |
|
| |
At this point in history we've got just the right
blend of technology and barbarian drive to invade
and colonize new worlds. We get too civilized we
may never leave this dump. It's like living in your
mom's basement. If you
haven't left by the time you're 35 you may be
stuck there forever. I'm thinking we're about 32
and the neighbors (if they're out there) are
starting to talk. "Didn't they move out for a little
while about 40 years ago? Guess they couldn't
make it and moved back home." |
|
| |
I'm certainly game for a bit of interplanetary viking.
Anybody else? |
|
| |
I'm not sure - I've never viked. |
|
| |
Oh, it's easy. Basically you just go someplace you've never
gone and have a look at what's there. If there's anyone
living there, you say hello and offer to trade peacefully. If
they accept, you've made a new friend; if they decline,
you
rob them of their valuables, burn their dwelling, and
(optionally) rape their women. Then you vike
somewhere else. |
|
| |
I think interplanetary "viking" will be more about
staying
alive through negative 150 degree nights than
raping and pillaging. |
|
| |
But life won't be that different than it is here.
We'll probably have parks and trees and lakes,
they'll just be inside. We'll have to wear clothes
before we go outside just like we do now, they'll
just be airtight. Other than that we'll do the same
things we do now
only out there. We'll have sports, art, love, babies
and pet goldfish. And from time to time we'll look
back at the poor dumb savages on Earth and say
"There but for the grace of God go I." |
|
| |
Well, personally, I'll forego the raping; never had a taste
for it. I think it's more of a relic from a bygone era. |
|
| |
Anyhow, the term 'viking', which eventually became
synonymous with the Nordic people who engaged in the
activity, basically means to go exploring. The pillaging
came about as a perfectly acceptable reaction to very
rude people who were unwilling to amicably trade with a
bunch of huge, hairy men brandishing swords and axes. So
once my people take to the stars, the viking shall begin
anew. My, we sure admire the exotic items you seem to
have in abundance here on this wonderful planet. Look at
these lovely things we've brought from Earth. Would you
like to barter with us? No? Well, it's your funeral... |
|
| |
I doubt we'll find anybody worth killing or
exploiting. We'll be looking for planets with water
located in
the right thermal zones around their stars. The
chances of finding both that and pesky
blue people flying around on dragons is pretty
remote. |
|
| |
But that's a long time from now. We've been given
two starting points, the moon which is only a
week a way but pretty tough to fix up, and Mars
which is only a year away but which has everything
we need. The nearest habitable zone planet
beyond that which
may have
water is Kepler-22b. At 620 light years away
it's about a 6,200 year trip if we get a fusion
driven rocket going, basically blowing up nuclear
bombs behind a shock plate. We're a
long way from forward thinking like that. At this
point, with present technology, we'll need some
kind of, I don't know, "seed ships" that have
everything you need for a human race packed
neatly in a can, just add water. Then just send it
on it's way and hope you get a postcard in 6,000
years. Pretty tough to get the budget for that
through Congress at this point. The other
approach I think would just be to have some kind
of ark ship that's totally self contained where the
society just lives on a space ship for thousands of
years. I'd certainly start work on this now. The
technology would be applicable to near planet
colonization immediately. |
|
| |
So first things first. We proved we can get live
people on another heavenly body with the moon
landings, now let's fire for effect and get that Mars
colony going. (or call it New Earth as I've
suggested) We're not doing anything useful here
on Earth at this point anyway. The job of
conquering this planet was accomplished a long
time ago and in these cramped quarters we tend
to quarrel on a regular basis. Who knows when
some idiot's going to push the button and blow us
all back to prehistoric times? This drive to expand
the species is also the same drive to kill each
other. I think we should channel that drive in a
positive direction. |
|
| |
But fear isn't the main impetus to do this, it's
fulfilling our programming. It's what we're here to
do. Nature has been throwing various life forms
against the wall to see which ones stick for
millions of years. Life finally got it right with us.
We
have what it takes to do what life does: expand
and conquer. That's a gift we shouldn't squander
and I would argue we have a duty to the entire
universe representing as we do the very vanguard
of life itself. |
|
| |
Wasn't this post originally about zapping fat so you
could fit into a bathing suit without working out?
Oh yea, almost forgot: [+]. |
|
| |
// I doubt we'll find anybody worth killing or exploiting. // |
|
| |
As I said, that's all optional. The basic idea is just to go see
what's there. |
|
| |
I don't Vike very well... but I'd like to Lewis'n'Clark the shit outta it. |
|
| |
Somebody give Hutchison free reign and a budget already... |
|
| |
Please pardon my ignorance - Hutchison the U.S. Senator from Texas? Hutchison, Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center? |
|
| |
Sorry for the assumption. I meant John Hutchison. He plays around with new forms of energy and harmonic resonance to levitate steel or cause objects with different resonant frequencies to sink into solid metal with no increase in temperature.
Very cool stuff.
Search for Hutchison effect if you are interested. |
|
| |
Meanwhile, back at the ranch... ' But the smell of cooking bacon makes me hungry which causes me to eat more'. Exactly (unless you're Muslim or Jewish), it's the one smell hard to resist and I say that as a vegetarian! I wouldn't eat it but something tells me I should and whatever that something is, it would be good to be able to turn it off so the smell has no appeal. Once the first human discovered that the first pig smelled that way when scorched, pig fates were sealed. Other cooking meat smells make me feel queasy so what is the composition of bacon which causes the opposite effect? I've identified salt and smokiness but what else makes it so hard to resist? |
|
| |
Your body is attracted to those smells because it's
programmed to like what's good for it except in
the case of sugar and a couple of other things, but
there's a reason for that. |
|
| |
You've got to remember something about your
body. You know the character "Disco Stu" from the
Simpsons cartoon? The one who wears bell
bottom jeans and platform shoes and is basically
lost in the 70s? Well you're body is like that only
it's lost in 20,000 BC. It tastes something sweet
like candy and it
thinks you just picked a piece of fruit off a tree.
It's assuming that you're not going to eat the
whole tree because you'll get full. It doesn't
understand that that's not fruit your eating, it's
concentrated sugar and you can eat it all day. |
|
| |
So you eat a candy bar your body, (which is stupid)
says: "Ug, we get fresh fruit today! We no starve
and get eaten by bear this night by Thrall! Be sure
and eat your fill for cold time come and we must
be fat. Also, fat mean we get big belly attract mate, show we good hunter survive drought long
time you big fat stud!" |
|
| |
Your body doesn't understand anything new. It
assumes anything you give it is the stuff it's
evolved to eat over
millions of years. You need to know how dumb
your body is to
manage it. It's a pretty handy revelation to work
from. |
|
| |
And eat your bacon, it's good for you. Eskimos
used to eat fat all day and had very little heart
disease. Now they eat a western sugar/grain based diet
and have the heart disease that goes along with
it. Ignore the
old "Food Pyramid" that was a product of the
agricultural industry buying off corrupt politicians
to tell the
people they need to eat 20 loaves of bread a day
to be healthy. |
|
| |
Discussions like this almost make me forget how much it
sucks to be Celiac. I mean, I have a disease that actually
forces me to maintain a healthy diet. Gluten-free is all the
rage right now because it works. I eat thick ribeye steaks
marbled with fat, I fry everything in butter, and bacon
occupies at least three tiers of my food pyramid, yet my
cholesterol is perfect and I have a body fat ratio of about
6%, all because I can't eat foods that trigger my body's fat-
storage mode. Pretty much everything I eat is fresh
because most prepackaged foods have gluten-based
additives. Once you get around the restrictions, it's a great
way to live. I think everyone should try it. |
|
| |
And it's very interesting to do a little detective
work and find where we got all this "don't eat
meat", "eat lots of whole grains" diet nonsense. |
|
| |
In the 70s the government said "Hey food
industry! No more fat! It's making people fat!"
which is sort of like saying eating sugar makes you
sweet. So the food industry said "Ok, here's a lot
of low fat products with tons of sugar in them."
The government said "Great!" and everybody got
fatter than ever. Never mind that sugar turns to
fat in your body, it does all sorts of crazy stuff to
your insulin levels and metabolism that don't help
either. In small quantities it's no big deal, but if
your diet is based on sugar you're gonna have
issues. |
|
| |
And whole grains have a bit more nutrition in
them than white flour but so does a martini with
an olive in it vs one without. That still doesn't
make martinis good for you. The grain industry
only recently had it's "Government" Food Pyramid
unceremoniously taken away and replaced by
something with a little more sanity and science
behind it. |
|
| |
I do understand the anti-meat thing. How do you
eat things that are so furry and wonderful? The
answer in my case
is "medium rare", but like most carnivorous
people, I only eat ugly and/or hard to train
animals. Nothing that's cute or can be trained to
walk backwards on a ball holding a parasol and
wearing
a little hat. |
|
| |
You should try rabbit. It's delicious, and if the cute factor
bothers you, all you need to do is visit a rabbit farm and
you'll discover what a bunch of single-minded little
assholes they are. |
|
| |
I've got two rabbits, one small and one giant plus a load of other beaks/gums/fangs to feed. It's not about cute, I just can't bring myself to wipe out creatures with a defined personality when other foodstuffs exist. If I could break what is, to me, that taboo, I could cook and eat a family member without a qualm. You do what you can live with. |
|
| |
You see, rabbits are cute, but they can't be
trained.
Our rules against eating any particular animal don't
kick in unless both traits are in place. |
|
| |
I'm not joking either. I would never eat a dog after
seeing it ride a skateboard. Why? Because it rode a
skateboard. Put a rabbit on a skateboard and see
what you get. |
|
| |
But the fact that rabbits are cute, only having the
one dinner worthy trait makes them pretty un-
popular. There'll never be a "General Smith's
Kansas
Fried Rabbit" chain of restaurants. Bugs Bunny
probably didn't help the rabbit food industry much
either. |
|
| |
//I'm not joking either. I would never eat a dog after seeing it ride a skateboard. Why? Because it rode a skateboard. Put a rabbit on a skateboard and see what you get. // |
|
| |
Eh, not bad but I'm gonna need to see a little more showmanship before I take Flopsy off the menu. |
|
| |
Picture me sitting in the second row of an empty theater, a knife in one hand an a fork in the other with two assistants holding clipboards on either side of me. |
|
| |
"Ok, who's next? Rabbit on a skateboard. Let's see what you got." |
|
| |
(Rabbit rolls across the stage as in the video link) |
|
| |
"Ok, cut, that's fine, thank you, but we're really looking for somebody with a little more pizzaz to their act who's a little less tasty. Next!" |
|
| |
Let me guess. Vegetarian? |
|
| |
//Let me guess. Vegetarian?// |
|
| |
I am - a simple search of this website will tell you as much.
However, that doesn't really have any bearing on your hypocrisy. |
|
| |
Please don't be too offended by my calling you on this, but your goal-post moving exercise here is a beautiful demonstration of the process of rationalisation. |
|
| |
In my experience, evangelical carnivores such as yourself also assume that all vegetarians are so for the same reason. This is not the case - there are many non-exclusive reasons. |
|
| |
Speaking for myself, I'd rather that someone was a humane omnivore than an inhumane vegetarian (or vegan). I can go into detail on what that means if you want, that's just the gist. |
|
| |
I'm not too interested in judging people by what they eat myself. As I said, I'm not looking for my sense of self worth on my dinner plate, I'm just looking for dinner. It does seem that vegetarians do seem to enjoy name calling more than omnivores though. I think perhaps that's part of the appeal. |
|
| |
As far at the "evangelical" tag, let me know if you see any faulty science in what I say and I'd be happy to update my view if given quality data. I'm here to learn as well as share. |
|
| |
And by the way, speaking of learning: |
|
| |
Definition of HYPOCRITE
1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings |
|
| |
I think I'm pretty clear. If an animal does sucky tricks, they're fair game for the dinner table. |
|
| |
I'm also trying to be light and humorous so please don't be offended when I ask: Does vegetarianism make people angry or do angry people just become vegetarians? Helpful hint: If you want to have a discussion with somebody you don't call them names then say "Now that I've insulted you would you like to hear my brilliant view of the world?" The answer will probably be "No thanks." |
|
| |
Well I, for one, eat what I eat regardless of whatever
judgement others make. Some animals, such as dogs and
cats and rhinoceroses, are not for eating. Other animals,
such as cows, pigs, lobsters, chickens, and one white-
tailed buck per year, are food (and leather, and bones for
the dogs, etc.). A few species sit astride that line. Anyone
who's seen my profile will note that I have a pet rabbit.
Her name is Max. She is an extraordinarily intelligent
rabbit who comes when her name is called, does her
business in a litter box, and tries very hard to not chew on
the furniture when we let her out to play. I would never
eat Max. |
|
| |
Her brothers and sisters were scrumptious. |
|
| |
I'd dearly like to comment on each point but unfortunately don't have time right now. I will restrict myself to just one para with the aim of covering the others later. |
|
| |
//Does vegetarianism make people angry or do angry people just become vegetarians?// |
|
| |
I don't know - I don't think it changed me or how I have developed. But then I think vegetarians are less angry than average. I suspect that I 'sound' angrier on in forum discussions than I am in person - if you meant me in particular. |
|
| |
//Helpful hint: If you want to have a discussion with somebody you don't call them names then say "Now that I've insulted you would you like to hear my brilliant view of the world?"// |
|
| |
Sure. Did you realise you were insulting random people (or at least, making inaccurate assumptions) way up the top of the thread?
//I'll point out to vegetarians that we have fangs to puncture the hides of our prey, the cusped or "canine" teeth. We also have a digestive tract designed to operate on animal or vegetable matter as food.//
Why mention vegetarians at all at that point? It's the first mention in the thread. |
|
| |
have to dash. If you explain what you were thinking there I might see it in a light which isn't derogatory. |
|
| |
Are you asking me to explain the difference between a disagreement and an insult? |
|
| |
The above was a disagreement. I'll refrain from giving an example of an insult for comparison. |
|
| |
Being vegetarian is a choice like any other choice stemming from the person you are. The sort of fish-eating vegetarian who wears all the T-shirts and goes to PETA rallies might fit the 'angry' label but angry people are everywhere, ranting about the cause of the week. I don't much like people using it as a badge of honour in the same way that I don't like people claiming all kinds of pagan street cred because they use a sweatlodge and have pentagram tattoos. That kind of boasting shows a weakness/neediness badly concealed. |
|
| |
The only time vegetarianism normally comes up is at restaurants with people you've just met, because surf and turf menus are a little sparse on suitable dishes. Like I said, eat meat or not, you do what you can live with. |
|
| |
Sure, absolutely. By the way, my wife was a
vegetarian when we first started dating. She never
talked about it, it was just a choice she made, not
a badge of honor or anything. Anyway, seeing as I
married one I don't have anything against
vegetarians. |
|
| |
I'm just not a big believer in declaring things like
diet, sexuality, race or nationality to be a badge
of honor. It's ok to be fond of any of those aspects
that reflect you, but they don't mean anything. |
|
| |
Agreed. It's just grandstanding to big yourself up in front of others but comes across to me as wearing underpants on your head. |
|
| |
//The above was a disagreement.// |
|
| |
You _did_ just randomly pulled out vegetarians as straw men. Here is your comment again: |
|
| |
::I'll point out to vegetarians that we have fangs to puncture the hides of our prey, the cusped or "canine" teeth. We also have a digestive tract designed to operate on animal or vegetable matter as food.:: |
|
| |
You're assuming that all vegetarians became so due to some sort of misguided belief that people are incapable of digesting meat. |
|
| |
You made this completely unprompted, it's not even relevant. So yes, it's (mildly) insulting - whether you realised that or not. You will notice that I didn't comment at the time, and we're only talking about vegetarians now because you disparagingly suggested that I must be one. |
|
| |
For what it's worth, being vegetarian was not even a factor in posting the link. You made a rash statement, backed it up with "I'm not joking either." - so I did a 1 minute google search, and posted the top result. You then had several options: |
|
| |
1) At least try to change your diet in line with your statement.
2) Somehow state that you wouldn't be able to do (1), and regretted your boast, or
3) Say that you wouldn't eat _that particular_ rabbit. And accept that you could be presumed to eat species you'd previously excluded, if they were ugly or hard to train.
4) try to make out that your conditions wern't met (even though they clearly were). |
|
| |
You know, I don't even like the definition of hypocrisy you posted; see the wiki link I'm posting. According to that, failing to live up to your own ideals isn't hypocrisy. It is the pretending that you have principles which you don't which is hypocritical.
But what I should perhaps have done is put a little winky face after the one-word anno. It's just not the culture here to use smilies. |
|
| |
//let me know if you see any faulty science in what I say ...// |
|
| |
Referring to omnivorous hunter-gatherers as a reason to eat more meat is a bit misguided. Most of our ancestors ate significantly less meat than those of us in the developed world now eat.
Sure, the Inuit ate stacks, but if you're not of that descent it's kind of irrelevant. |
|
| |
In that respect at least, meat is just like sugar - protein being something we're evolved to crave more than we need of. |
|
| |
Took you three days to come up with that? Some
advice: Don't become a scientist or a lawyer. You'll
starve no matter what your choice of diet. |
|
| |
I addressed the fact that many vegetarians insist
that we're naturally vegetarian by nature. That
isn't something worth freaking out and calling
names over. I also addressed the fact that some
vegetarians are really cool people to try to be nice
but I guess you chose to ignore that. |
|
| |
We're omnivores. This is a fact. I made no
statement about "eating more meat". I made
statements against eating processed sugar and
post agricultural revolution grains and pointed out
that we're designed to eat meat and vegetables.
Again, a fact. |
|
| |
Anyway, if you want to disagree it can be done
without throwing out insults so lighten up. |
|
| |
//Took you three days to come up with that?// |
|
| |
Sorry for having other things in my life besides posting to the halfbakery. |
|
| |
//Some advice: Don't become a scientist or a lawyer. You'll starve no matter what your choice of diet.// |
|
| |
Sheesh. All I said was it'd be nice to get thin easily. |
|
| |
Yea, but it was the way you said it. (kidding) |
|
| |
'Sheesh. All I said was it'd be nice to get thin easily'. |
|
| |
Easy - eat all the foods you don't like. The palate is a stubborn opponent but can be re-educated. |
|
| |
Yea, that's pretty much it. |
|
| |
So, if we collided a catholic vegetarian Mac user with
a protestant meat-eating Windowser, could we
harness the energy, or would the world just collapse
into a black hole? |
|
| |
Arn't Catholics are obligate piscivores? |
|
| |
I think their rule book just says "No meat on days
beginning with an F"; it also says "beavers are fish". |
|
| |
<flicks through Old and New Testaments looking for references to beavers being fish> |
|
| |
<Searches Koran, Mahabharata, various pre-Columbian texts, Confucian Analects, Pharonic Book of the Dead, and Good Old Yellow Pages> |
|
| |
Hey, [MB], can you cite a source for that ? Other than Armaments, Chapter 2, verses 9-21, obviously ... |
|
| |
I'm pretty sure it's not in the testicles. In the
17th Century, the Catholic church did a Rules
Revision, when it was realized that the "fish on
Friday" business was inconveniencing some
players. Accordingly, beavers were declared fish. |
|
| |
I'm not sure where the original fish on Friday rule
came from. Presumably Jesus went down the
chippy one Friday. It's probably just as well there
isn't a huge amount of detailed biographical on His
Jesusness, otherwise there'd be lots of other rules
such as "On Tuesdays after the shops close, thou
shalt go home and take a bath" or "On Wednesdays
at mid-morning, thou shalt go for a cappucino,
and yay all of the chocolate powder shall be over
on one side." |
|
| |
Depends on how happy you are about cappuccinos. |
|
| |
We quite like little monkeys, actually. |
|
| |
Depends on how they're prepared. |
|
| |
Just so you're clear on my thoughts on this: |
|
| |
//I addressed the fact that many vegetarians insist that we're naturally vegetarian by nature.// |
|
| |
I know ...exactly zero vegetarians who would do so. If I did know any, I would argue with them about it.
As someone pointed out above, perhaps a faction of American vegetarians (or perhaps vegans) do so.
It's still an irrelevance to the topic. |
|
| |
//That isn't something worth freaking out and calling names over.// |
|
| |
You're right, it isn't. Of course, you're the one with the ad hominem argument. |
|
| |
//I also addressed the fact that some vegetarians are really cool people to try to be nice but I guess you chose to ignore that.// |
|
| |
I did see that your wife was formerly vegetarian, but had no comment to make on that. |
|
| |
//We're omnivores. This is a fact.// |
|
| |
With certain qualifications. It's not entirely true though, is it? I mean, you and I eat some animal products, but some people are vegan (no animal products at all) and do okay.
If you said modern humans evolved as omnivores it would be a fact. Whether being vegan is healthier is debatable, but it's not really my concern (and just so you know, I doubt it). |
|
| |
Of course, it is a mistake to think that because something is 'natural' that it must be 'good'. |
|
| |
//I made no statement about "eating more meat".// |
|
| |
Your implication did however seem pretty clear. If you're _not_ saying that, then why go on about eating meat at such length? Perhaps you were encouraging people to eat all their food raw? If so, you could be clearer. |
|
| |
The basic problem you've got in this discussion is projecting an erroneous reason on me for calling you out. |
|
| |
Regarding all your advice, I think this is the best bit (I've removed an unnecessary fragment): |
|
| |
//find some strenuous activity that you enjoy. [...] we're designed to move around, but you'll have to find something you like doing or else you won't stick to it. If you've got some kind of mental defect that allows you to enjoy running on a treadmill an hour a day, you're in luck. Otherwise you'll have to find a series of strenuous activities that you actually enjoy.// |
|
| |
For myself, I'm not - and have never been - overweight, so I can't give advice from that perspective. However, I find it very strange that people will fill their lives with labour-saving devices and then go to a gym to burn off the calories they saved. |
|
| |
//You also probably don't realise who you're lecturing. I am confident that Max has a much better understanding of human evolution and nutrition than you. (For the avoidance of doubt, I think I do too.)// |
|
| |
Ok, I'll assume you may have paid somebody for a piece of paper that says your really smart with lots of Latin in Germanic type that's suitable for framing. So as an expert on human nutrition and evolution tell me where you're disagreeing with me. Don't tell me about your right to call people names, tell me this great advice about the science of nutrition. And don't try to get Max on your side, either you can defend your position or you can't. Believe me, if Max disagrees, he'll let me know. He's no wallflower. |
|
| |
So should we eat lots of grain? Should we eat lots of sugar? Should we not eat meat? Should you be able to call people names? (Ok, skip that last question.) |
|
| |
Why not share all this brilliance about diet and evolution that you possess? Maybe we'll all learn something. Seriously, I find the subject interesting so let's see what you've got. |
|
| |
You heard the man, combat spatulas raised... tap oven mitts and come out swinging. |
|
| |
I don't speak for max. What he does in real life he seems to want to keep separate from here; I should not 'out' him - I shouldn't have said what I did so I'm going to go back and delete that comment. Max, if you're cross with me then I can only apologise. |
|
| |
You can actually buy impressive-looking pieces of paper online quite cheaply nowadays.
However, you can rest assured that I am not a dietician and have zero pieces of paper qualifying me to give advice in that regard.
Argument from authority is a mistake. And this site is often an outlet for ideas and things we may not actually believe in. So no - while I don't have the same compunction about keeping things separate, I'm not going to say more than that about myself, either. I assume it would be fairly easy for an interested party to figure out from prior postings on this site. |
|
| |
//So should we eat lots of grain? Should we eat lots of sugar? Should we not eat meat? |
|
| |
Eat whatever the fuck you like. But don't boast about your principles, welsh on them when provided with new information and then bitch incessantly about the consequences. |
|
| |
//Should you be able to call people names?// |
|
| |
//(Ok, skip that last question.)// |
|
| |
uh, sorry. I'll let you have a free hit. |
|
| |
//Why not share all this brilliance about diet and evolution that you possess?// |
|
| |
Could you do me a favour and read the idea and comments again - carefully, from the start? Not right now, but come back later. I'll do the same and we can talk some more. |
|
| |
I'm not fat, as I've pointed out, and anybody who would call somebody a "fatty", even if they are fat is an asshole. There are many wonderful people who are overweight and plenty of skinny jerks. |
|
| |
//we can talk some more.// |
|
| |
//I'm not fat, as I've pointed out, and anybody who would call somebody a "fatty", even if they are fat is an asshole. There are many wonderful people who are overweight and plenty of skinny jerks.// |
|
| |
That was intended as a joke - I thought I'd signposted that enough. I mean - really blatently, in the context of the thread where you'd stated that you are not fat. |
|
| |
I suspect it's my sense of humour which is pissing you off quite so much; I guess we don't have enough shared culture for you to catch them (and perhaps vice-versa).
Because to be fair, it seems to me that you've been snidely insulting to me thoughout this thread. I concede that I did call you a hypocrit. But then, it was true. |
|
| |
//I guess we don't have enough shared culture// |
|
| |
Well, I have had various pieces of paper, but I
have no idea where they are now. |
|
| |
I consider myself an expert... but not on human
nutrition. Soviet wristwatches, now there's an
area I could help with. Or possibly anything to do
with DNA. |
|
| |
But, finding myself in the position of being me,
and for clarification, nobody has annoyed me. |
|
| |
<Pauses to pop on a white coat; brushes off
biscuit crumbs; steps toward whiteboard.> |
|
| |
Ahem. Is this on? Hear me at the back? |
|
| |
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that
humans are designed to eat whatever they can
get. They seem to be able to manage on mostly
meat, or on mostly plants. Nowadays we have the
choice, and some people like mostly meat, and
some people like mostly plants. Some people like
only meat, and die; some people like only plants,
and generally seem to survive. Lots of people like
some plants and some meat. I like peanut butter
a lot. Actually, that might underpin the root of
the nub of the essence of my problem. |
|
| |
I think that sums up most of the last century or so
of anthropology and dietesiology, more or less. |
|
| |
Meanwhile, at least one good thing has come out
of all this. This, and a couple of other topics here
on the HB, are providing the basis for chapters 3
and 4 of my friend's D.Phil thesis on "Interpersonal
Conflict in Virtual Environments". So one day
you'll all be internationally famous in the
Experimental Psych. department in Oxford. |
|
| |
Will I have to wear a diaper and have electodes hooked up to my head during the experiments? |
|
| |
(Standard joke response: "Only if it makes you feel better.") |
|
| |
// Accordingly, beavers were declared fish. // |
|
| |
Reports are sketchy, but I believe the declaration
legitimized muskrats, rather than beavers, for
consumption during Catholic feasts in northern climates,
where fish are rather hard to come by in the winter, or
alternatively during the Great Depression, when fish was
hard to come by year-round. Various sources cite
Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, andor Belgium as the locations
of this strange and disturbing practice of gastrological
retaxonomification. |
|
| |
According to Wikipedia: "In the 17th century, based
on a question raised by the Bishop of Quebec, the
Roman Catholic Church ruled that the beaver was a
fish". |
|
| |
There's a dirty joke in there someplace. |
|
| |
Yeah, but I'm not going there. |
|
| |
And why am I wearing this white coat? |
|
| |
Okay, so it's beavers and muskrats. Probably some other
easily-snared semi-aquatic mammals as well. In fact, why
restrict it to mammalia? Let's allow antipodal Catholics to
dine upon the humble platypus during Lent! |
|
| |
Wait a minute, what do you mean martinis aren't good for you? |
|
| |
Well, depends on your definition of "good for you" I guess. Properly administered they can probably be great for you. |
|
| |
Thank-you Max. I am relieved. |
|
| |
What's the difference between a beaver and a water otter? |
|
| |
One is a kettle and the other one's a whole other kettle of fish. |
|
| |
I'm pretty sure that hippos don't eat beaver, not
even on a Friday. |
|
| |
...which sounds like the punch line to a dirty joke. |
|
| |
It was. But you'd have to be as drunk as I was (and
preferably sitting in the same bedouin tent) to
appreciate it fully. |
|
| |