/b/ I can't handle this shit. I literally hate fat people. Whenever I see them I am filled with absolute disgust and disdain. Whenever I have to interact with them (which I do often, considering I work at a bulk food store) I'm just full of rage and disappointment. They've squandered the beautiful human body they were blessed with. They're a mockery of the most advanced creature on earth. They also happen to rack up obscene amounts of medical bills that my tax dollars pay for just because their fat shitty body is falling apart, and they cost companies money because they have to accommodate these whales. I won't even start with "fat acceptance". Those two words fill me with the burning hot rage of the big bang itself. But the worst part, the part that drives me fucking crazy, is that there is so fucking many of them. I can't go a single minute without seeing one at my job. Walking behind them is a fucking nightmare because they saunter along all slouched over, walking about as fast as a turtle with a broken leg. I just can't handle this shit. I already have suicidal ideation daily, and the fact that the world is being taken over by these savages drives me further down the spiral of depression and hopelessness. I'm reconsidering having children just because I don't know if they're going to inherit a world worth living on. Anyone else hate fatties as much as I do? >pic unrelated, an actually curvy woman
>>696803540 >>696803289 >pic related >>696803645 Then there's these fuckers. People that just accept their fatness as being a part of them, no intention of losing it. Then they bitch about being fat. >>696803681 No, they swallow.
>>696806986 Well if you think about it when people become so fat that they take up space, cant clean themselves properly, and generally act like assholes, then it affects skinny people who care about themselves.
>>696806986 it's not sensitivity its disgust, the amount of rascist, cuck, fag and scat loving fuckers on this site disgusts me and it pisses me off the world has to accomodate for peoples bullshit but oh well
I have a few overweight friends but most of them are still physically capable and recognizes they are not the most healthy but at the same time are fit enough not to care. They drive me insane, how can the be so complacent
>>696808338 Yeah. Like I said. You're sensitive. You're an emotionally fragile person, who gets triggered by the way others live their life. Your life isn't interesting enough to hold your own attention, so it wanders to others, who irritate you, because they're doing the things THEY like, instead of the things YOU like.
But, that's why you should just ignore them, and focus on what you like, because that's... that's why you are you, and why they are they. Get it?
You do you, and they do they. And that's what a person is.
>>696809036 Do whatever you like aslong as it doesn't affect others. Being fat fucks the world thought, its greed, and more resources are required to get food into these fat cunts, which is fking the planet, but planets already fucked right? basically it affects me cause it affects my home aka the earth
i hate fat people and they should all die for being such resource hogging piles of shit
my mom always tells me about how there were no fat people back in the 70s when she was a kid. thered be like 1 fat person in school and theyd get teased to shit for being disgusting landwhales, as they should. now people coddle them, guys overcompliment them boosting their egos so they think theyre hot shit, and they comfort each other making themselves think its ok
my work is nothing but fat beaners. they all eat like shit buying a snack every single break period and drinking diet sodas because all fat people delude themselves into thinking they arnt overeating if they get soda with the word diet in it. they seriously think this shit helps and when i call them out on it they say 'i just like the way it tastes'
all my customers are fat too. i hate their stupid disgusting fat asses
Was on the bus earlier this afternoon, this fatshit hornrim glasses wearing lardarse bitch was so wide she was taking up her seat, the seat a small child was sitting on next to her and half the walkway between the seats. Shit disgusts me.
What are you, six? Humans aren't the most advanced, they're just among the most complicated. Really, that doesn't even account for shit; evolution happened to all of the other species that are still around, so they're also advanced in different ways.
Do you know where we get our medicines? We open up and delve into the chemical composition of other organisms. Plants and animals alike are where we derive our medicines and poisons from. Coral has some of the most insane poisons we've ever encountered, and it's so small you'd need a microscope to see it.
Don't make me laugh; we're far from the most advanced creature on Earth. We don't even care about the other creatures on it.
>>696811911 You're being mismanaged. And then you're directing your frustration onto your patients, who aren't in a position to change the way you're managed anyways. So nothing gets done, and you get more frustrated.
Here's what you need to do. You need to explain, to your boss, everything that you've vented to anonymous strangers on the internet. That's how this situation changes. Or, you stay silent and frustrated, which amounts to accepting the task of wiping morbidly obese people's asses for them because they don't have the flexibility to reach it themselves.
One of the worst things about people being overweight, is that the acceptance of size is now getting completely skewed - to the point where what was once considered "overweight" is now normal. People have to be driving around in carts or unable to walk before being labelled as "fat", especially in the US.
Pic related, this woman say... 20 or 30 years ago would be an anomaly, an abomination in most people's eyes as she'd likely be twice as big as a regular fat person. But now, this is standard size for most "fat" people. It's ridiculous.
Men - >180lbs/190lbs = overweight Women - >120lbs/130lbs = overweight
But you can bet people will argue those numbers as they seem ridiculously low compared to what is now the norm.
>>696812243 Not until they're an acceptable weight. I'm not going to give them praise because they decided to put down the fork today. If they need some sort of external encouragement and praise just to want to be a normal human being it's too late for them, or you, as it may be.
>>696812273 But do other species see what we've done and recognize it as macro changes? For all we know, birds see our houses as no different from natural caves.
If so, then how do we know that saaay cetaceans don't alter THEIR world in macroscopic ways that are too subtle for our puny human senses to detect? Maybe to a cetacean the difference between an sea that's been managed by their brains (which are larger than ours) is completely different than a sea which hasn't had the cetacean touch applied to it. What complex interactions do they affect their ecology with that we're unaware of because we lack their intelligence? We'll never know, until the day we do.
>>696812322 Fatties who are all proud of their bodies is all great, until they get told they are unhealthy until they become a burden on the medical system. People have refused the food we gave them because it wasn't mcdonald's tier shit.
>>696812273 uh I'm sorry but that doesn't. And you're wrong.
1) If you studied plants for like an eighth of a minute, you'd learn that cyanobacteria created the situation of high Oxygen content in the atmosphere. Before life on Earth, the atmosphere was largely Carbon Dioxide.
tl;dr, cyanobacteria created the oxygen-rich environment that made our lives possible, so you're fucking wrong.
2) The other idea for "advanced" is the idea of living beings being technology in a way. In that sense, we have among the largest number of new parts (aka the most complex), but we're not necessarily the most advanced. An advanced piece of machinery just has to be good at its job. Centipedes, wasps, mantises, birds, reptiles... they're all good at their jobs. They're all advanced. Some of them are so good at their jobs, in fact, that they haven't even needed to change much. They've been refining their programming for millions of years. That's all they've been doing, is refining it. They haven't made new organs, no new placenta. They have the same shit, but they're just... better at it than they used to be. That's advanced, too. For instance, coral.
>>696811117 First off, well done on deciding to make a change and putting in the effort.
If you fall off the wagon, it's not the end of the world. Just get back on and keep going.
Overall quality of diet is very important, especially in the long run. Calorie restriction will result in weight loss in the short term but your results will taper off quickly.
More important than 'weight loss' per se, and calorie restriction, is a positive change in body composition. i.e., you're probably around 40-50% body fat. You want to get down to <20% to not look fat. Anything below about 10% and you start looking reasonably lean.
You want to focus on quality of diet over calorie restriction because in the long run, calorie restriction leads to loss of lean body mass too (muscle, bone, organ tissue). Lean body tissues burn much more energy than fat. A diet with adequate protein, good carbs and good fats, you'll accomplish this.
Think of your diet in terms of amounts of macronutrients (protein, fat, carbohydrates), and micronutrients (vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals), and the EASIEST ways of obtaining these from food.
Carbohydrates: Sweet potato, wholegrain breads and cereals, wholemeal pasta, brown or basmati rice.
Vitamins and minerals: fruits and vegetables. The greater the variety in the colours, the better. Preferably raw with the skin on.
In terms of portion sizes, you want half your plate to be fruit/veg, one quarter to be lean protein, and one quarter to be carbohydrate foods.
Snack on things like crunchy vegetables, or a small handful of unsalted nuts or seeds.
Keep drinking the water. 4L is plenty. Your urine should be pale yellow coloured. Darker usually indicates you need a little more water, while lighter means you're adequately hydrated. Alcohol and caffeine change this though.
We domesticate other species for our benefit, something that has not been observed. We display higher order thinking, something that has been only observed in very few other animals. We are the dominate species on the planet. We are the only species to display a complex written and spoken languages. We are the only species on the planet that creates such a massive food surplus we can waste time killing each other over stuff that isn't food
Changes to the planet made by bacteria just metabolising energy is very different to direct purposeful changes.
>>696812934 Obligated by whom? Because whoever is obligating you is wrong, and that needs to change. Here's what I see--you're just as complacent with the situation as the fat people who you pretend to despise, but do nothing to change. The moment you step out of this situation, you'll create room for others to step into. You'll get to help "actually sick people" according to your very specific definition of what that means, and others will get the opportunity to care for morbidly obese behemoths.
Unless you enjoy despising people, in which case. Great. It's an all you can hate buffet, get your emotional fix on.
>>696813758 Domestication is the process of adapting wild plants and animals for human use. Domestic species are raised for food, work, clothing, medicine, and many other uses. Domesticated plants and animals must be raised and cared for by humans.
>>696812458 The opinions of the general public, yes. Many people perceive people who are actually overweight or obese to simply be normal, or "only a little overweight".
However, as far as dietitians and doctors are concerned, the standards haven't changed. They work off the BMI scale of 18.5 - 25kg/m^2 being a healthy weight range.
The BMI scale is based on cross-sectional population data, showing that people within that healthy weight range are at the lowest risk for metabolic and lifestyle-related diseases like cardivascular disease or type 2 diabetes.
For 99% of the population, the BMI scale is perfectly appropriate. There are allowances for athletes, children, the elderly, and genetic differences based on race/ethnicity (e.g. slightly higher healthy weight range for Polynesians and slightly lower for some Asian populations). But really, the BMI scale is a very reliable tool.
Some health professionals combine a BMI with a waist circumference measurement, as it's also a reliable measure of risk of the above-mentioned conditions. But it's usually used as a secondary measure if some people seem borderline based on BMI.
>>696802048 On board with you mate. I also don't like fat people, fat chicks especially... And I hate fat chicks who are confident but fat, them I want to kill. She had one job only, not to get fat and she blew it.
>>696813808 Well, look. It's just reality. Like, take a step back from your life for one second, and just really think about what the fuck this place is, and why none of it matters. You're here, you're living your life, and it's really nobody else's experience but yours. There's probably a lot of good reasons to be fat as fuck. If it feels good, then that's all the reason you need, because in the end that's all life is meant for anyways--to be experienced. And a lot of bad parts about it too. But being thin is really nice also. And sometimes it actually sucks, and you feel a gnawing hunger that makes it seem like you're dying (because you actually are.)
So just forget everyone else for a second, and seeing all the possible lives you could have, just pick the one that's right for you, because you're the one who has to live it anyways. Whatever you pick, they're all right. No matter what you do, somebody is going to pretend like you're their biggest problem, and no matter what you do, there are going to be people who love you unconditionally for it. So, just be honest with yourself, and everything kind of works out in the end.
>>696813440 Higher-order thinking? You mean tool use, right? And cause and effect? Most animals can do this if you explain it to them; my dog knows how to turn on and off lights because he has the free time and the ability to learn. My cats could all open doors.
Give an animal free time and they will learn whatever. We domesticated ourselves, too; we no longer use the second stomach that we had before we started cooking with fire, because we no longer need it.
Even more interesting, we're not the dominant species on the planet. There are trillions of other animals and plants on this planet; the fact that we're arrogant enough to attempt to take away the environment that gave us life just shows that we will likely also be so arrogant as to let ourselves exhaust our resources before we learn how to sustain the human population.
We're all going to die from the human race's hubris. We're not the dominant species; you've been misled by arrogant motherfuckers.
And, believe it or not, animals don't always kill each other over food.
>>696814012 Well, guess what. The state's wrong about that. Now who's going to explain this to them, if not medical professionals?
*I* could do it. I could go right up to my State's congresswoman and explain "Well, y'see, hospitals need some way to turn people away, because ultimately we're all mortal, and it's not their job to live our lives for us."
But those words wouldn't carry any weight. Because I'm not a medical professional.
That's your guys' job, to explain to people what is and isn't a legitimate injury, and you're not doing it, and that's why your job sucks. You're not doing it properly.
>>696811117 Good on you, fella - I don't give a fuck how fat someone is, if they're making the effort they earn a little respect. A friend of mine had great success filling a 1ltr water bottle every time he lost 1kg, and storing the bottles in his closet. Whenever he started to lose momentum, he looked at that big ass pile of bottles, and realised he wasn't dragging that shit round with him every day. Good luck, anon. Keep going no matter what.
>>696814700 Yeah, that's where the whole "fat & fit" vs "thin & unhealthy" debate comes in.
Agree with the case by case basis. There's no one size fits all solution when it comes to treatment.
However, when making an assessment of someone's body composition, BMI is extremely quick and useful.
If they're obese, they're obese. Simple as that. They may pass a cardio stress test or a glucose tolerance test. All that tells us is that it doesn't look like their heart will give out anytime soon, and that it doesn't look like they have insulin resistence or are pre-diabetic. It doesn't change the fact they're still obese and at risk of CVD and T2D.
Also, if their BMI is >30, i.e. they're "obese", but they're obviously athletic, then common sense prevails and you know the BMI scale doesn't really apply to them. But again, this is a very small percentage of people. If you're still not sure, you can use waist circumference, waist to hip ratio, or a skin fold to be sure when you're assessing body composition.
Body composition assessments, glucose tolerance tests, and cardio stress tests all measure different things.
>>696815165 I think you're retarded. Specifically because you are that guy who thinks that the cashier makes the prices for that thing you want but are mad that it's too expensive.
Same thing here. "You're doing your job wrong". Like you would know? Never mind that the doctors and nurses have zero control of what the hospital does as a whole, and the hospital has no control over the law, and just because you're all edgygrimdarkjadedesu doesn't mean everyone else has to be. It's shitty that people go full baby mode and take up a bed, and i agree that is wrong. But you flying in, shriveled cock blazing in the pale light of the monitor in your mom's basement, telling people that "ur doin it wrong" is the same basic principle as "1v1 me scrub".
You're just a loser with no valuable contributions to the world, and seek to hurt those who do.
>>696815520 Very true, I tend to not use BMI for myself because despite the fact I appear physically fit and healthy and pass almost all tests relating to health (I fail lung capacity tests). But certainly it is a useful tool for preliminary work
>>696815583 Maybe. But is crabbing at me ever going to change your situation?
There are people in the world where your angsty hate will actually affect things in a positive way, so that you won't have to do the things you hate to do, and others will have the opportunity to do the things they love to do, which is also the same things you hate to do.
But it's not your patients, and it's not randos on the internet like me.
>>696816227 It's mainly ceremonial anyway. These days, doctors pay more attention to practice guidelines laid out by their respective disciplines, as well as their insurance companies' policies and hospital practice guidelines.
There are two ways people could be using "advanced," but biologists literally never refer to humans as an "advanced" species.
We may have traits that are advanced, sure, but the evolutionary tree is based on levels of complexity.
We're considered something like one of the most complex species.
I was actually thinking "advanced" like looking at humans and organisms in general as technological advancements, and in that sense, most species are at a similar level of advanced, because they've all evolved by performing specific jobs. We might not be the most advanced, by that metric, because we've only been around for maybe a few million years at best, whereas things like roaches and ants may have been around, roughly unchanged, for something on the order of scores of millions of years. They might be better at their respective jobs than we are at ours.
What if you are fat because of a condition beyond your control, and it's not possible to "cure" it? Hormone problems, organ problems, whatever. Do we just say "oh well, that's life?" That's not how humans work, and it's one of the things that makes us evolved and wonderful. Is helping people who can't help themselves.
There are a few challenges when it comes to helping obese people.
1. You can't do anything while they're in hospital. There's an abundance of literature saying that it's pretty much impossible to provide education to an inpatient and try make changes to their life post-discharge. Regardless of disease, whether it's obesity, alcoholism, narcotics, whatever.
2. So you need to see them as an outpatient in a clinic. The problem here is that you're relying on their motivation to come and see you, and them being honest with both you and themselves when it comes to making positive lifestyle choices. Are they honestly reporting their diet/exercise? Are they actually going to follow any of the advice I've provided (even though we're only starting with 1-2 small changes to begin with?).
3. Now you need a multidisciplinary team. Not just one doctor. You need the supervising doctor, a dietitian, a personal trainer or a physiotherapist, a health coach or social worker. It adds up. And more often than not I see them just give up.
>>696817052 So, actually, many books on biology refer to humans as the most advanced species on the planet. You're just wrong about that. But, you're also responding to my criticism intelligently, so instead of slinging mud, here's how i disagree;
I understand what you mean when you say complex instead of advanced. But, to make the assumption that we are not advanced (in "not being good at our job"), you have to first know what our job is. And, for that matter, the job of any other organism.
Technological advancements, there is no other species that has technology unless you count other primates using sticks as tools, and squid using rocks to bash on shelled critters technology.
In addition, just because something has been around longer (ants, roaches) doesn't mean they are more advanced. The nokia brick phone has been around longer than any other cellphone, but it is certainly less advanced in almost every conceivable way by other phones (yes, including durability)
>>696802048 I want you to know Even if this is just copy pasta I want people to know I have a fat fetish and support fat acceptance and HAES despite knowing all that is just bullshit cause I want more bitches to feel comfortable with getting fat and burdening the healthcare system, taking up space, stinking, whatever the fuck else it is that triggers you about the fatties Cause it makes my cock hard and you mad inside
>>696817447 Uh no? No. No, you're just ignorant now. Cushing's syndrome, hypothyroidism. Those are two examples off the top of my head (google if you don't know) that can lead to obesity. Perhaps not the 700lb landwhale you may be thinking of, but definitely there are people who, without going to extreme lengths, cannot simply be thin and fit.
Energy expenditure has to exceed energy intake to achieve weight loss. The body will then burn fat to provide the energy deficit.
People who have medical conditions that "make them fat", e.g. hormonal problems or some steroid medications only have a 10-15% decrease in their basal metabolic rate. If they eat sensibly - not starve, just sensibly - and perform light to moderate physical activity on most days then it will not even come close to being a problem.
The bigger problem is the effect their altered hormones or their medication may have on their appetites. This is where mindfulness comes in and they have to watch what they shovel in. That's why people get fat as a result of these conditions. NOT because the condition MAGICALLY makes them fat.
>>696817512 Well, can't get everything right. Every bio teacher I've had for the past ten years has at most called them "higher-order" species, and usually tends to refer to them in terms of complexity, since that seems to be the way the evolutionary tree was set up.
Anyways, moving onto the actual meat of the conversation:
The job is what humans have been designed through doing. Look at our anatomy, and look at the anatomy of other species that have both similar and different traits when compared to us.
A few things stand out, tbh, but to sum up, it looks to me like a lot of human anatomy was honed by running. One specific case is the tendon in the back of our head that's pretty much only found on running species. Another fun fact is that it takes about twenty-six miles to run a deer to exhaustion.
So that's my idea of what's up.
Anyways, I don't disagree with you on the "been around longer but may still not be so good" concept, but I don't think the Nokia was the best example of such a thing. Nokias stopped being modified and edited, whereas roaches and ants breed prolifically; they've been being refined and edited at an accelerated pace to our own, so your analogy isn't quite up to snuff. Doesn't invalidate your argument, just means your analogy muscles need more work.
Anyways, the point being that ants and roaches have had more iterations of the same lifestyle edits we have been undergoing, so it's not the same idea. They still might not be "as advanced" as us, but I don't really know because I haven't studied in-depth really any ant species or roach species. I've certainly given them a cursory glance, but you can only do so much before the roaches look like they're gonna crawl off the screen and you have to abandon the subject for a few months.
A 2000 calorie diet being affected by 15% means that you automatically have to eat 300 calories less than normal, if we go by your elementary explanation of these conditions (which is inaccurate, but any one interested can simply do their own reading)
Never mind the philosophical question of how you can demand someone feed themselves properly when they've never known anything other than their current lifestyle (bad parenting/situation) OR the simple fact that fastfood/simple sugar foods are the cheapest. Cheapest bread? Basic, sugary white bread. Cheapest meat? low quality pork (high in fat). Cheapest drink? FUCKING SODA (inb4 tapwater is cheap because duh).
And before you get all uppity on "produce and raw foods are cheaper lol", the fact is that you have to know how to cook, how to keep that food, and how to use it before it goes bad to make that work.
Please don't misundestand; I've seen the ham-planets that take welfare money and convert it into Cheetos and poptarts. And they get huge, and they are awful. But there ARE some people who simply don't have the means to escape their situation, AND already have a disadvantage in the form of a medical condition.You denying that those conditions exist is cruel and incorrect.
Decent medical professionals focus on patient-centred care. We make sure the patient is actively involved in the decision-making process when it comes to their care. It's not just a bunch of elitist doctors preaching up on their soapboxes.
Where possible, we try to give the patient some options, but it can't always be done.
e.g. with weight loss it's all about achieving an energy deficit. There's no two ways about it. There may be factors that affect an individual's ability to achieve this, e.g. co-existing conditions, medication, motivation, other personal matters, etc.
But the bottom line is, energy out has to be greater than energy in. If you want to lose weight, or achieve a healthy lifestyle, then you need to make changes to your lifestyle. There's no magic pill or treatment that just 'cures' fat.
>>696817512 Your inability to recognize the advancement of other species doesn't equate to their lack of advancement. When you think about, a species' inability to recognize the complexity of anothers' could be a sign of that species inferiority. It's an invalid question.
Given any set of data, you can just as rationally believe that bacteria are the most superior species on the planet--they eat humans, don't they?--or that they're the most inferior.
Superior--they're so intelligent, we can't communicate with them. Inferior--they're so stupid, they can't communicate with us.
>>696818576 There are still nokia phones, and they are certainly not the best phones out there, so that part holds up just fine. Also, you said specifically that the ants and roaches have "been around, roughly unchanged, for something on the order of scores of millions of years". Aka, they've stayed the same and are better for it. But now, you're changing it to they have "been being refined and edited". My metaphor only breaks down when you change the rules.
As for what our job is...i'm not sure what you are saying. Your grammer is a bit rough, as though maybe english is your second language (no disrespect if it is), but what I think you mean is that our "job" is to be a long distance runner? In which case, we, as a species are the undisputed champions of endurance running. It's how our species, arguably, rose to dominance because it allowed us to hunt our prey, eat meat, and utilize the protein to develop our brains to the point of intelligence, leading to tools and eventually agriculture. So...that defeats your point as i understand it (though correct me if that was not your point)
>>696818516 I do have a choice I quit my job and don't think about it. Their lifestyle makes them sick just like a smokers makes them sick and an adrenaline junkie gets themselves injured.
You can't just stop treating them but they don't want to get better. The people on the ground don't have control, the higher ups don't have control our job is to help everybody. I have been accused of trying to kill people after telling them they need to fast for a blood test. That type of shit really wears on you.
>>696819232 What you are implying is deprivation of liberty, you can't force somebody to do something that is an actual crime.
>>696819140 You haven't actually said anything. You've just created parameters as such that the question cannot be answered. One of those existentialist quandaries that only exists to keep college students up at night.
And yes, it COULD be the case that, secretly, there is a species on our planet that is so hyper advanced that we cannot perceive them. But, by all observable data, WE are the most advanced by technology, impact on the planet, and we are at the top of the food chain (yes, because guns. Still doesn't change anything)
>>696819223 looks like someone forgot how to read half way through my post.
I addressed the raw ingredients are cheaper point BEFORE you even posted. As i already said, 1) you have to know how to cook. 2) you have to have the means to store and keep food until you use it.
To refute in another way, one of the cheapest foods you can get is packaged ramen, which is one of those cheap foods made from shitty ingredients. But it's cheap as hell, easy to make, and tastes like delicious salty water SO people by it and store it away.
So i'll restate THIS so it sticks in YOUR stupid fucking skull: Not everyone can cook.
>>696819710 I've pointed out that even under the best experimental conditions, you can never distinguish higher intelligence from your own ignorance. That's why measuring cocks with other forms of life is a pointless endeavor. I don't mean like "shame on you, for having an ego, hurr durr." I mean it is mathematically, scientifically a dead end. No amount of observational evidence will ever be enough to determine that a species is either so complex that you can't even understand the level they're on, or just so simple that there's nothing to understand. Both look identical, so by all physical standards they are the same condition.
But if you can see the intelligence of another species, that actually makes you measurably more intelligent than the other members of your species that can't, because you're now able to communicate a signal through a medium (other species) that others cannot. See how that works? Being so smart that nobody can understand you is equivalent to being the dumbest person in the universe. So people who go around professing how oh very smart humans are, are actually just pointing out how they're the dumbest members of their own species.
Nothing personal. You can either be mad about it, or you can get smart and learn to look for intelligence where previously you were *convinced* that there was none.
>>696819365 I said "roughly," because they were always tiny six-legged terrors that bit anything that came near and harvested discarded matter for their food, but the specifics have changed over time. Roughly, they're the same. Carpenter ants may have been chewing into trees for as long as there's been wood, for all I know. But, as wood changed, so did they. And as they changed, so did wood. Roughly, they're still creepy fuckers whose bites hurt like shit, but they could have been like slightly red back then, I dunno. They could have not had poisons that they now have to dissuade predators... the list goes on. "Roughly" unchanged was used to explain that they retain basics but change specifics, because that's the premise of evolution, is that the evidence of evolution was left behind in these species that didn't change so much as the ones that did. Like liverworts vs higher plants, to put it in a slightly more practical perspective.
Actually, my grammar was exactly as I wanted it to be in that post. Humans have been designed through long-distance running, is my guess. But the latter bit is your extrapolation; also, I don't think "utilizing protein" would lead to our brains developing an increased amount of intelligence. I think the better concept would be something along the lines of, "in order to properly track a single animal over a massive distance on foot, and do so to the point where the animal collapses and dies from exhaustion, you need an amount of intelligence and empathy that far outstrips that needed for other hunting prospects."
So the brain was honed through the same practice of hunting that honed the body, is my guess.
Or eat 150 calories less and burn 150 calories more. Which is about the equivalent of 1 slice of bread per day and about a 20min light walk.
>Never mind the philosophical question... > And before you get all uppity...
Which I why I mentioned here >>696817511 you need an entire MDT to help these people. They need the knowledge, skills, and support to help them achieve this.
Food security is definitely a contributor, however there are many programs in place that can help (at least a little) with helping them find access to fresh, healthy food at an affordable price, or help teach them cooking skills. Finding these programs is a whole other story though. But they're out there.
Another option is the use of meal services, where healthy meals are delivered to them. This is more common with elderly people, but most people can access these services.
Providing information on these services, and linking patients/clients up with them is just one of the many things dietitians do - in addition to providing nutrition care.
There are definitely options available to disadvantaged people. However, one of the biggest problems is that many of them don't access these services. Some don't know about them, while others refuse to.
>>696820226 it's called an appendix. Humans are descended from ruminants. They used their stomachs to harvest bacteria which then died in their stomach and were digested along with the food they ate. Humans don't need it any more, because they don't digest cellulose, and they cook their food. All the reasons for a second stomach are kaput.
>>696820325 No. That's not correct. I can see the intelligence in other species. Chimps, for example, have the ability to create primitive tools, and work with more advanced tools, and have their own form of communication. In fact, they (along with gorillas) can learn sign language, a form of human communication. But, they are inferior to us because, as a species, they have not developed the more advanced forms of the things they currently have, and we as a species HAVE developed those things. That is something we can observe and quantify.
You are the one who is too stupid to realize your own ignorance. You assumed that, because I believe we are the most advanced, that I am "convinced that there was none" in other species. That is the whole basis of your argument. That i'm wrong because of THAT claim. Except that claim is wrong. So you're basically just a fool.
>>696820584 I think that you are correct, but my point isn't that it's impossible or that people can't do it. My point is that it is harder for some people than others, and a medical condition may make it just that much more difficult so they can't cross that threshold without help. Which, as you mentioned, is not always accessible >>696820343 >>696820529 I actually was a cook in a few bars and restaurants. I know how to cook. But not everyone does. Not everyone has access to 4chan. My mom does indeed have an oven and a stove (for those of us who don't live in the slums like you, they are one unit), and I even have my own stove and oven (again, one unit) in my apartment!
What you two retards fail to grasp is that, and i'll say it again, NOT EVERYONE HAS THESE OR THE ABILITY TO USE THEM. If i gave you 100lbs of raw ingredients that you didn't' know how to cook, it would do you absolutely no good. Further more, if you live in a place WITHOUT these things, you're screwed. OR, maybe, you have been feed nothing but bullshit by your shitty parents your whole life and consequently, through no fault of your own, are now unhealthy and fat, AND never learned how to cook because no one taught you.
Bottom line is that you're right about the ways to escape obesity, but wrong in assuming that everyone is just automatically capable of doing so. And those medical conditions you think are witchcraft make that process even harder.
>>696821335 One thing my dad said to me that stuck with me forever was "you either have to learn how to cook, or you have to learn how to eat bad food."
Make them cook. If their food is shit, then maybe they'll eat less until it's good. Or maybe they'll find this magical French entity called a Re-seep (spelled "recipe"), they'll figure out over time which combinations are good and which are bad, and they'll come out having learned a new skill. And then they'll be one of those people who want to eat a shitload, so they'll begin to exercise so they can eat good food all the time with fewer repercussions.
>>696820397 What i mean about the protein is that biologists and anthropologists have come to the conclusion that our biological ancestors started to develop or "evolve" larger, more capable brains about the same time that they started hunting and eating meat as their primary food source. I see what you mean by "roughly", but i still don't see how you think that humans are less advanced than other species because, like those species, we have also gone through minor revisions and changes over time to make us better at what we do, whether it's distance running and hunting, OR developing technology to make our lives more comfortable. >>696821225 Chimps can do things that I cannot. Like rip out the arms of men. Chimps can do many things that I cannot, primarily physical. But, I can do far more things that a chimp cannot, specifically in a mental capacity. But, I can't prove that to you because you're stock answer will be "how can you PROVE they can't do those things?" Well, technically YOU can't prove that chimps can do things I cannot. I recognize that you're trying to get back around to "this argument is pointless because blah blah psuedologic", but it's not working.
Also >Nothing personal. You can either be mad about it, or you can get smart and learn to look for intelligence where previously you were *convinced* that there was none. You absolutely DID say that. It's right there. I'm neither delusional or upset.
>>696821335 >I know how to cook. But not everyone does.
These people literally, and I mean literally, need to kill themselves. Being able to prepare a meal, even in the most basic form, is the simplest task humans need to do. If they can't manage that then they do not deserve to be alive.
>>696821346 I have read that the mind of birds (crows and ravens specifically) may be more advanced at solving puzzles involving tools and moving parts than humans are, but their lack of thumbs and education limits them.
I think that we should always have housing/shelter, but i agree that there must be a more sustainable and natural way of doing it than knocking over a forest for cookie cutter suburbs. >>696821790 I super agree with this. Except "make them cook". If it's that easy, why don't YOU do it? Just go out there and teach everyone who doesn't know how to cook. Just do it right? I don't mean to be aggressive here, but that's my whole point. There is no one to teach these people. Those whose responsibility it was already failed or didn't try to begin with.
>>696822102 If they can't even cook a meal, what makes you think they can figure out how to kill themselves?
At least some of them would take a lethal injection, if it was offered to them, such is their sadness at their condition. Are you ready to actually talk about this like an adult, instead of referring to 'kys' like a cute tumblr meme?
It's amusing that you're all so emotionally invested and so opinionated on this topic, but it literally doesn't matter at all. Click-clacking away on your keyboards, only to be stuck in an endless back and forth argument. Nit-picking at some bullshit minutia the other person wrote in an attempt to throw them off and sustain your argument. Meanwhile, your main point becomes so convoluted and strays so far from your initial argument, that you don't even know wtf you're arguing about anymore. Then the thread 404's and you go back to posting banana memes in trap threads. 10/10
>>696822102 So babies then? Babies need to kill themselves? They don't know how to cook a meal. This is where your logic fails. I could make the same thing about something that you don't know how to do (and it would be wrong), and it wouldn't be fair because no one taught you how to do it.
If someone has only, from birth, been raised on instant meals and takeout, and was never shown what an oven does and how to use it, then how would they know how to cook? Even if they are capable, they wouldn't even know it was an option.
>>696823007 1) maybe no computer or internet 2) Go ahead and google how to do something you've never done before (like ask a girl out). Immediately apply your knowledge. I"m sure it will work out the first time, and it will be perfect in every way. In the case of cooking, it MAY mean that you burn the shit out of yourself and your food, rendering it inedible.
>>696823170 I just find it interesting that you have this opinion on the subject which basically boils down to "posting in this thread is stupid and useless", but then you post in this thread. See what i mean?
>>696821898 Yeah, like I said, the brain was honed through the pursuit of prey because of the method of pursuit chosen by us. Correlation, but maybe not causation, on the protein front.
And, while I understand what you're saying, I'm saying this: Humans have been going through these "minor" revisions for something like three million years at the absolute most generous scale, more like 300k years. Roaches and ants have had the same body structure, almost exactly, for like forty or eighty million years on the more conservative side. Trees have been around for shorter than ants, is my point. So when I say carpenter ants could have been around since wood began forming, I'm talking literally, the first woody plants could have been colonized by the ancestors of ants and termites.
They've had much less changes overall through a much longer time period, so they have had more time to "settle" into a niche
>>696822343 We're at the point where we can literally create basic mobile shelters for all people and just send them on their way. It'll pollute less than what we're doing right now.
Tell them to go to McDonald's once a week and use the FREE WIFI to download recipes and watch classes online to teach them LITERALLY ANYTHING THEY COULD POSSIBLY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT COOKING. THEY HAVE THE SUM TOTAL OF THE WORLD'S COOKING KNOWLEDGE AT THEIR FINGERTIPS
>>696822343 samefagging this hard but in addition to the basic mobile shelters I just mentioned we could build, you can use 10' x 10' of silnylon tarp as a basic shelter, you can teach people how to use it, and if you teach the right people (a TED talk somewhere said grandmothers are the right people for this job, look up barefoot university), it'll spread just as quickly as the product itself does.
Regardless, give them the products they need to live and the education that allows them to live and then set them on their way. They'll either live and report back their findings (because you educated them properly), or they'll die. If they die, that's sad, but life goes on. If they don't, they make offspring.
>>696823431 I'm not entirely sure this assessment is accurate. Are you saying that carpenter ants from a few hundred million years ago could survive in today's environment? Because... I don't think that's true.
In my mind, that's what advancement of a species is--the sum total number of environments they are capable of reproducing in. But, I'm the guy who doesn't put humans very highly on the evolutionary scale, when compared to saa~aay spiders.
If anything, a species not changing over millions of years would be proof positive that they are more advanced, because their one form is able to meet many evolutionary crucibles successfully. But even so, I'm quite sure that the carpenter ants today are specialized to types of plants their genius specifically lives in and around, just on the basis that they reproduce quickly, and therefor adapt to their specific environment quickly.
>>696823308 I think i may have to throw my "humans are advanced" argument out the window... >>696823431 Well, while in theory those scientists COULD be wrong, it's more likely that they are right than either of us. They have proven that access to protein affects brain development in a positive manner, so I would absolutely say causation. I do think I understand what you mean about the ants and such now, but I realistically, you and I just fundamentally disagree on what it means to be advanced (apparently), in which case their can be no true argument.
I don't know what you mean about rule 31 (it's either blank or "you must have pictures"), but your argument also means that anything you want to do can be solved by just watching it online (never mind that they may not have a device with which to use the wifi), which I think is not correct in all cases.
>>696823913 What I'm saying is that carpenter ants have had the same basic anatomy to a much higher degree than pretty much all known mammals and reptiles long before they did. They've had more time to settle into their niche than the more complex species did, so they may be technically better at whatever job they fulfill, because their generation time is so short and their history so extensive. We've had a third of an eightieth of their time, essentially. Could you imagine that? It's like holding a forty-year-old to the standards of a two-month-old.
>>696823793 A tarp does not protect you from extreme temperatures, and does not keep you out of harms way for wildlife and/or flooding. But, barefoot university is a bit more complex then that, and I think it's a very interesting idea.
>>696823366 Your reading comprehension skills must be subpar. I never said posting in this thread is stupid or useless - although it is - and for that matter, so is being on 4chan in general. I merely stated that engaging in a back and forth argument over such a trivial topic with people that won't be swayed one way or another - that will nitpick and convolute their point for the sake of "winning" so many times that they don't even remember what they're arguing about - is amusing to me.
>>696824328 You didn't type the words, but it was implied. The way you tried to talk down to the participants of this discussion implies that you believe yourself above us. My assumption is reinforced by you opening your latest response with an insult.
It is therefore logical to assume that you think it is stupid or useless to post here. Which, as it turns out, i was right to assume. So my "reading comprehension skills" seem to be just fine.
>>696824286 Also, it's not pseudologic. It is in fact, bayesian statistics. I just thought I'd clarify that point. You want to believe that I'm ignorant in these matters, but I'm actual educated them. Like, actually educated--I went to a college to become educated in logic forms. So, I can be as specific or pedantic as you need.
If you want to make this the kind of discussion where I bring forth very specific rules of logic and explain with mathematical precision why what I am saying is true, within the confines of bayesian statistics, I can do that. But, not until you prove you know at least one logic form yourself, since it does take a bit of effort, and over one hundred attempts to have this conversation with people, only once has anybody ever been able to keep up.
If you want to believe that others are not fluent in logic forms without knowing a logic form yourself, that's also totally fine.
>>696824303 Yeah, you're supposed to be surviving in nature. That was the idea of the comment. You should be subject to the nature that created you, not immune from it. Unless you're like diabetic or something, that's where the idea of the communal education centers would have to come in I guess.
But the idea is that you'd die or you fucking wouldn't, not that you have all the comforts of a modern society while simultaneously being on your own in the middle of the forest. You have some or you have a house, those are about the only two options you can sustainably get, and only one of those is actually sustainable. Hint: it's not the one where you have all the comforts of modern society. A/C isn't sustainable.
>>696822552 >If someone has only, from birth, been raised on instant meals and takeout, and was never shown what an oven does and how to use it, then how would they know how to cook? Even if they are capable, they wouldn't even know it was an option.
I was never told explicitly by either of my parents how to cook, but I was able to understand that 'Steak goes in pan, pan goes on stove'
If they can't figure that shit out they must be mentally retarded. And if they are they should be euthanized.
>>696824578 It is essentially that. Ingesting more protein leads to a more advanced diet, which provides more energy, more muscle development, and higher brain development, which made it easier to hunt and kill. As this trend continued over generations, those who had access to the most protein and best diets became the biggest, strongest and smartest, making them better hunters, which got them the best food, which made them bigger, faster stronger, making them better hunters, etc etc...
>>696824769 I hope I didn't imply it was pseudologic; I was just trying to get my point across.
Anyways, if you want to bring bayesian statistics into it, I won't really complain. I tend to learn best by being immersed in shit I barely understand and scrambling to keep up, so I'll keep your points in mind as I accumulate the understanding required to get them.
I tended to read war books, so I never got round to studying formal logic. It might help me with math, though; can't frame a mathematical question to save my dick, and now that I'm studying math in earnest it's come to bite me in my special place.
I'ma be honest. Fat chicks turn me on, and the more people get embittered and salty about the obesity epidemic in America, the more attracted I am to it. I was originally here hoping someone would post some disgustingly sweet pics, but when they didn't I stayed for the delicious salty tears, which also were somewhat lacking.
>>696824891 you know, the more times I hear about positive reinforcement cycles, the more interested I get in them. Cancer cells, protein, hemoglobin, prions... I guess I'll keep eating shit tons of meat, lol
>>696824875 I'm not talking about sustainability or returning to nature. The conversation is about advancement. If you think that living in the forest and living off of berries is "advanced" then great. You're wrong, but great for you. >>696824769 1) I will concede that psuedologic is not the accurate term for what i'm talking about. I used it to shortcut 2) Bayesian statistics is basically looking at the world through the lens of pure mathematics.This, in my opinion, is useful only to accumulate data to be analyzed, not as a way to live your life. I have been educated in the ways of logic, and it seems that you are trying to puff yourself up here. "At least one logic form". You sound like you're describing anime fight styles here. Do you mean something like euclidean logic, based off the geometry of the same name? Computer logic? Or do you mean if P then Q and such things? Either way, i doubt your credibility. >>696824890 Not only is your opinion on how to deal with mentally retarded people disturbing, but I think you vastly overestimate not only your own abilities, as well as how very little people can be taught by their parents. It's tragic, but true, that many people still think microwaves will cause them cancer because the microwaves will "Mess up the food". That's a real thing that some people believe. But if they were never taught otherwise, how can we blame them? I'm also confident that sometime, one or more parents told you that the stove produces heat and is used to make food. And you got to observe them making food in the first place.
>>696825656 >people still think microwaves will cause them cancer because the microwaves will "Mess up the food". That's a real thing that some people believe. But if they were never taught otherwise, how can we blame them?
Because that's fucking retarded. That's why I would blame them.
>>696802048 Well what's what you get when you give people free will, low education and allows corporations to brainwash the population in to eating junk food (commercial is a form of legal brainwash).
A completely different system is required to fight obesity. Am not saying communism but communism guys, with an authorised leadership and governmented enforced diet program would be the only way to cure this. And of course make it illegal to produce, sell and make commercials for food that is bad for you.
Can't blame people for being stupid if they are lead to be stupid by the system from the start.
>>696825956 I agree. My example is extreme, to be sure. But, at the same time, seeing it done and doing it are two different things. I'm sure you've seen lots of people work construction on roads or sidewalks, and i bet you can't do that (unless that's your job, in which case you were taught).
>>696826144 >I'm sure you've seen lots of people work construction on roads or sidewalks
Buy a bag of cement, the bags have instructions on how to mix it, if I was really concerned I would google on how to mix it, the correct ratios of mixture to water etc, build a wooden frame around where the path needs to be, pour in the cement mixture, level it smooth with a flat piece of wood. Wait for it t harden completely and you're done. I don't work construction but I still have that knowledge.
And guess what, just like cooking my first sidewalk would probably be pretty shit, but the more I made the better the end result would be.
>>696824924 White peoples enitre society is based on the ancient african society and the premise and first order of modern society is racism. Just as in days of old, the negro and darker skinned people are the fuel that keeps the machinery of capitalism turning
>>696825656 The reason I ask for people I argue with to name a logic form is so that I can learn it in order to communicate with them. The correct number of logic forms is one or greater, so the mathematical term that describes that set of values is "at least one." I am moderately aware that the voice of my post begets a sickeningly cocky, fedora tipping euphoric fat fucker. That's kind of the point.
The idea is to be both emotionally flagrant, while technically logically accurate, so that people who are more easily distracted by tone of voice and word choice will respond with expected insults and save me the effort of having to respond to them like they're worth the effort, and those who ignore the easy insults and choose to respond the actual logic I'm presenting will do that instead. Hence, by sort of double encoding all of my writing, I address either scenario with the appropriate response, even though it's only one post.
This is kind of a key theme I've been trying to demonstrate throughout this whole thread--the idea of two scenarios being indistinguishable from one another, on the basis that they each satisfy the observational conditions. Get it? If you look at this through the lens of "oh, this guy's a weener," then you get a kind of post that matches that perspective. And if you choose to view with "oh, he's being pedantic" then you get that, instead.
Kind of like how if you choose to believe that there's no sign of intelligent life because it's not there, then that's exactly the kind of world frame you get, and nothing can ever convince you otherwise. And if you chose to believe that there's no sign of intelligent life, because you wouldn't be able to recognize it even if there were, then that's exactly the kind of world frame you get. Based on observational evidence, both scenarios are identical. It is provably unprovable that your species is ever the most intelligent one.
>>696826457 Great! Assuming that you can actually do that right, GREAT!
Now you can build a skyscraper right? Because you saw someone pave a street? OH, but what if you need a steamroller to smooth out the road. Also, where is your hammer for the wooden frame? What if you don't have one? What if you don't have wood?
You make it sound so easy, but it isn't always. In this case, the "wood" and "hammer" is "knowing what temperature to cook your meat to so you don't get sick from it" and "owning cookware of any sort"
>>696826676 >Now you can build a skyscraper right? How is that even close to cooking food. It's not.
>OH, but what if you need a steamroller to smooth out the road You can rent large equipment from businesses that exist solely to let out these sort of hardware, a google away and I would have an address of where I needed to go to get the steamroller
>Also, where is your hammer for the wooden frame? The hardware store. If I didn't have one, which I actually don't, I would go to the hardware store.
>What if you don't have wood? They also sell this wood at the hardware store. Which is where I would have needed to go to buy the cement mix, and because I'm not a retard I would have planned this all out and bought everything at the same time.
>You make it sound so easy, but it isn't always. In this case, the "wood" and "hammer" is "knowing what temperature to cook your meat to so you don't get sick from it" and "owning cookware of any sort" Just like before, if I wasn't sure exactly how to prepare the cement mixture I would have googled it, and guess what, if I didn't know what temperature and how to cook the meat I would also just google it and instead of buying a hammer from the hardware store I would be buying pots and pans from any sort of chain retail outlet. There is literally no excuse not to be able to figure this out.
>>696826586 I know why you post in the shitty way that you post. I can tell that you're intelligent, but you're not as intelligent as you think you are. And, like the math-biased view you follow, your functionality is extremely limited. Sure, we can put ANYTHING through your parameters and get results. But are they useful? You have set up a paradigm in which you render the argument unprovable, and indeed EVERY argument unprovable, because you are controlling the conditions necessary to demonstrate proof. Which is not only useless in practical application, but scientifically unsound.
What you are doing is saying that it cannot be proven because both situations you have set up lead to the same result. Except, those aren't actually the only options. Being that not only do I see you as "a weener" and "being pedantic", but I also see you as thinking of yourself as some sort of intellectual, and by setting up the rules that you think are viable, you're forcing people to play a game with no winner, and you believe that making them play this game in the first place makes YOU a winner. But you're wrong. All it does is lead to frustration for the weaker minded, and eye rolling from the strong.
>>696825656 I mean my idea is that it's more advanced to make do with what you see around you and using the collective knowledge you've attained from your education to make your way through a world that is actually rife with threats to your life, as opposed to navigating a world that is more rife with threats to your comfort or dignity.
I think allowing yourself to be sucked into the place of current-day society or any derivative thereof is allowing yourself to go soft. I know it's a borderline autistic way of thinking, but I guess I've always had somewhat of a death wish and never had the balls to go through with it without actually testing myself. I intend to test myself when I've properly prepared, and then I'll know how far I was able to go.
I don't know if everybody should do what I'm planning on doing, but I think I'll have a more well-rounded concept of society if I remove myself from it for a time, so I'm only really talking about it explicitly like this on an anonymous forum because as far as I can tell it's stupid, arrogant, autistic almost, and possibly suicidal.
>>696827123 Money and technology/tools. All your solutions require that. And in the case of those people eating that shitty, easy food (especially fast food) they lack the money and or resources required to help themselves. My "build a skyscraper" is meant to demonstrate that just because you know one basic thing about one basic action doesn't' mean you can now competently do everything in that field. Further more, if someone is so poor that they can only afford raw ingredients OR fast food/crap food, then they probably don't have the money to buy pots and pans. They may not have internet, or a device with which to use the internet. So they still haven't been taught how to do this. You got all uppity about how anyone can figure this out. when asked how, if they've never been taught, you said google it. And if they don't have google? Then what? If they can't buy pots and pans, then what?
>>696827148 Okay. So, what's the difference between a species being so intelligent that you don't observe their concepts, versus a species that's so lacking in intelligence that you don't observe their concepts?
Because, the way I see it, you either observe their concepts (art, technology, influence on the environment, number of habitats they can successfully breed in) or you don't. In my mind, those are all the possibilities in existence. So, what is the other distinction that you're seeing, and I'm not?
>>696827322 I can respect your alternative viewpoint on how to live, even if i disagree. Though i can see your point in suggesting that, if you can deal with actual life threats you are more advanced than someone who only deals with "getting triggered".
>>696812824 Speaking of birds, a mommy bird started building her nest on my front porch.
Was about to shoot her nest down because of the insane amount of shit those things produce, but one day when I was leaving for work I looked up and saw 5 little heads popping out and I'd be lying if I said it didn't warm my heart, and whenever a bird flies by (I assume mom) they start chirping, real cute.
>>696827520 well it's not just "triggered" or whatever, I'm also talking about having to do degrading or horrible things for money in order to live. It's rife with affronts to dignity and other traits because you can strip or be dishonest for money and that's going to keep you alive, but you're not going to have much left at the end, you know.
You'll stay alive, but it's something of a half life, a cursed life. If you can survive on your own, then why even deal with being homeless in the city, you know? Just live off what you can find in the wild. Money's not as big of an issue, so it doesn't hold the same power over you.
>>696827460 There is no practical difference aside from what impacts they have on us, seen or not. But that isn't what I'm arguing.
Because we CAN see, on earth, the effects and concepts of other species. We are aware of them, and their complexity. We can observe these things. Playing your game, lets eliminate all that which cannot be proven and observed. Aka God, flying spaghetti monster, super advanced aliens that live in a dimension that we cannot in any way detect. Your logic is correct that we cannot prove that we are the smartest species to ever exist or currently exists, accounting for things we cannot detect. But, among the things we can detect and observe (whale social structures, primate tool usage, etc), we can compare our progress with theirs, and determine that they are less developed. Obviously, we are biased in the creation of our own system of judgement. But, we cannot truly ever be free of that. It is impossible. But to then say that this invalidates our claims would then make it so that any comparison, any system of judgment, is equally useless. And then you get nothing. Literally, nothing.
>>696827408 >Money and technology/tools. All your solutions require that. My solutions require the basics that any human being living outside of Africa has access to.
>And in the case of those people eating that shitty, easy food (especially fast food) they lack the money and or resources required to help themselves. It's cheaper to cook food than it is to live of fast food. So they money they have to expend on buying the most basic of utensils will be very quickly regained in overall expenditure.
>My "build a skyscraper" is meant to demonstrate that just because you know one basic thing about one basic action doesn't' mean you can now competently do everything in that field. I can cook a meal, but I would never be able to appear on Iron Chef or what have you. And you don't need to be god tier michelin star level to cook for yourself.
>Further more, if someone is so poor that they can only afford raw ingredients OR fast food/crap food, then they probably don't have the money to buy pots and pans. See my comment above about cost of fast food and expenditure.
>They may not have internet, or a device with which to use the internet. So they still haven't been taught how to do this See my comment above about not living in Africa
>You got all uppity about how anyone can figure this out. when asked how, if they've never been taught, you said google it. And if they don't have google? Then what? If they can't buy pots and pans, then what? See my comment about not living in Africa
>>696824716 This chimp-level nitpicking you're doing is exactly what I was referring to. You're grasping at straws. The primal urge to beat your chest in victory as a display of dominance is leading you to fall victim to the same cycle I alluded to earlier. Let me simplify this so knuckle-dragging, sloped-foreheaded, thick-skulled, troglodytic Mongoloids such as yourself can understand; you can't refute my statement. I'm not stating an opinion or making an arguement about a subject - I'm simply saying that the pointless back and forth is amusing to me. I'm stating a fact about how something I observed made me feel. If you put those phenomenal reading comprehension skills to good use, you'd see that my first words were: "It's amusing to me.."
>>696827881 Are you kidding me? Are you unaware that there are people in developed countries that are also in poverty? And while it's true that it is cheaper to cook, if you don't have the tools to start, you can never regain that money because you can't. If i have 20 dollars this week for food, i can buy 7 small burgers for the week, easily. If i instead bought the cheapest, 20 dollar pan i could find, i would have no food to eat. If i bought 20 dollars worth of groceries, i would have more food in theory, but then i wouldn't have bought the pan to begin with, and i'd also have not eaten this week.
>>696802048 You deserve to be surrounded by fatasses you stupid fuck. And yes, I can call you a stupid fuck because you work at a menial job reserved for recently divorced housewives and the mentally retarded. YES,I look down on you shits in your low end job that could be done literally by any fucker with no skills. I'm just glad I don't need to tip you for that lazy shit you call work. My wife and I laugh at your kind whenever we go food shopping. Your life is a misery, and that is your own damn fault.
>>696827916 That's kind of the point, though, isn't it? How many people is the world capable of handling? With a fantastic education, we can probably increase that threefold or so at best, but even with all that, that's the peak sustainable capability of the Earth to house us, you know?
That's just south of a billion people... We're at like eight times that right now. That's too much, dude, we need a change. The best thing we can do is ease people into the concept that that lifestyle is preferable, and encourage people to study as hard as they possibly can and then work to do something interesting with all that knowledge. Encourage, I guess, scientists or something, and then send them into the wild to find something interesting worth researching.
>>696827581 There's a universe where there is a hyper advanced life form, that communicates through signals that we aren't even aware of. They are so intelligent, that nothing we do could ever possibly interest them. They are capable of manipulating us, if they choose, but every time they demonstrate this, humans are so stupid that they think it was their idea all along.
There is a universe where there is no such life form.
We don't know which is which, without gaining observational evidence. All observational evidence for one universe is experimentally identical to all observation evidence for the other universe. Thus, they are always the same universe. In other words, you can never tell the difference between a life form so advanced that it's beyond your understanding, and a life form that is so simple that you're beyond its understanding. In other words, the idea that there is every a life form that is "the most" advanced is implicitly invalid, and you can prove with this without needing to get observational evidence one way or the other.
"Are humans the most advanced life form?" isn't even a correct question, because it's provably unprovable to determine yes or no to that question. But, there are people who are aware that this is the case, and there are people who are not aware that this is the case, and that is itself the first way to actually measure the intelligence of a life form--whether or not they are aware of the fact that the most intelligent and least intelligent person is observably identical.
It's entirely possible that very advanced, hyper intelligent beings have been to Earth, saw that humans were not on this level of consciousness because they still believed the invalid myth of a "most advanced species," and continued on their way having not discovered any intelligent species on Earth. Get it? It's a little ouroboric, but it's describable in mathematical terms. It's just not a popular kind of common sense, or five monkey style piece of trivia.
>>696813440 Many species use a symbiotic long-term relationship. "Domesticated" ants and aphids asshole. If you pay for pets food and clean up their shit it could be argued that they are on the top of our symbiotic relationship
>>696828134 If you were in such a poverty stricken country you wouldn't have access to fast food, nor would you be fat. It's also pretty safe to assume you would be living with your 7 brothers and sisters, so there would be no reason you couldn't manage to scrape up enough money to purchase some pots and pans.
>>696828029 You're using the same "chimp-level nitpicking" to try and demonstrate that I'm unintelligent. And, in an even more primitive act, you're insulting me, which is perhaps the clearest sign of a lower intellect in any form of argument. It means you've already lost. And as I already tried to explain to you (but you failed to grasp) is that by reading the subtext of your post I can rightfully assume that you are posting in an attempt to make other people feel stupid, so that you can (just once) feel smart. It's cruel, and serves no purpose than fueling your own ego. Which makes you exactly the kind of person that you've described. The fact that you're doing what you described while arguing with me is even more indicative of someone who has no real competency in argument or rational thought, but believes they can fake it by looking up the words they used in a thesaurus and swapping them out with words they've never head before, they can appear smart.
>>696828371 Ideally, we would all be educated and competent enough to live off of what the earth can provide, in a manner that is both sustainable and feasible for our survival. >>696828406 You don't seem to know how poverty works. Also, "such poverty stricken countries" include Britain, France, the USA, and many other "super powers". While not rampant, the poverty level does exist. And it doesn't always come from big families with too many kids. It can come from a family who is getting by one 1 income that suddenly looses that income, and now you can be on the street.
>>696828383 I guess there's two ways of looking at this. One is that you're trying to convert me to agnosticism, which is interesting, because now I know how fucking annoying it is to listen to me talk about how there's no fucking point in having that conversation.
The other is that you spent all this time arguing with somebody who wasn't me, and you accidentally replied to me once in the middle there thinking you were talking to the other one. Because I was talking about advanced lifeforms in that they fulfill a specific job with a certain level of efficiency, which is quantifiable, whereas I've been arguing that generally I see no point in arguing about organisms in terms of their level of "advancement" so much as their level of complexity, which is something much easier to measure and much more useful to have results for.
>>696827823 You ever think maybe there are SOME things that are invalid, but SOME things that aren't?
Does the idea that there isn't a most advanced life form actually invalidate everything else in your life? Does your sense of reality actually hinge on the fact that you are the most advanced species? Some definitely-not the most advanced species I know actually want to know the answers to these questions, because they may or may not have the capability of physically proving to humans that humans definitely aren't the most advanced species.
But this won't happen if ANY humans sense of realities hinges on the fact that they are the most advanced species in their sphere of awareness.
>>696829050 Oh, and what magical country do you live in with no poverty at all? It does have to do with not knowing how to cook because THERE ARE people who have been born in a situation in which they have always been on the street. And "having money for takeaway" could be the $8 you begged on the street for this morning that someone gave you. No. Stop. Don't go in with "well just save it blah blah blah buy shit" and pull yourself up by your bootstraps. That shit doesn't just magically work. And why question how food is made when you're busy trying to live on the streets?
Again, all this is very specific and pedantic, but in order to demonstrate how thinking in absolutes is wrong, we have to go down this path.
>>696829119 Okay, well, here's a functional definition of god you can choose to have, if it makes sense to you. God is all the people. That means god is kind of an asshole at times. It's true. It also means god can be chill though. God is all the people, including people in places you never thought could exist. Can a particle be a person? You're a person, but you're actually just a collection of memories and signals--god would be all the memories that could ever exist even if they don't in this exact moment. And god would be all the ways of communicating those memories by ways of signals.
Does god exist? Idunno. Define "exist." But there are times when many people work together as single consciousness, even as they maintain their sense of identity in doing so. And the things people do in that state of mind is god like, indeed.
>I fall in love with a girl. >Unable to confess, I'm gifted by a deus ex machina with the girl's phone number. >Never minding the strange area code, I immediately call her, and I'm overjoyed to find out that she has a crush on me as well. >But, the next day, when I recount the previous day's confessions to the girl, she only looks at me with a perplexed expression. >After some investigation, I find out that the girl I called is not the same girl I fell in love with. >In fact, she doesn't exist in this universe at all. She is the girl's alternate universe counterpart, who has fallen in love with my own AU self, who too is blissfully unaware of her crush. >Hijinks ensue as we strike up a deal to give each other our darkest, most private secrets in order to equip one another with the weapons we need to conquer the heart of our other selves. >While we chase our respective loved ones, DRAMA ensues as we begin to fall in love with each other instead and question the NATURE of LOVE.
>>696829485 >Oh, and what magical country do you live in with no poverty at all? My argument wasn't that poverty didn't exist. Solely that spending money on takeaway when you have no money is fucking retarded.
>It does have to do with not knowing how to cook because THERE ARE people who have been born in a situation in which they have always been on the street. Bollocks. There are still shelters that take in homeless, especially women and children, and whilst these aren't homes for them they do provide them with shelter and food, if only for the night. So once more they would need to be retarded to not think 'Hey this food they're providing us, I wonder how it was made'
>>696829267 >My claim is that, by all observable data that we have, compared to the other species on our planet, we are more advanced than they are.
Okay. So, if we were not the most advanced species on our planet, what observational data would you expect to see, that you don't see right now? What would it be like, if humans were actually the LEAST advanced species on this planet? And if that were the case, would it match the observational data that we have accumulated thus far?
>>696828455 Very beautifully written; you've successfully proven your intellectual ability to be far beyond that of any other man on 4chan. The only problem is that I haven't nit-picked anything you said or made an argument of any kind. I merely reiterated my original point and explained why it was irrefutable. Dismissing my actual statement and claiming to understand the "true meaning" hidden within, using nothing but your incredible intuition and uncanny ability to discern the subtext is absolutely brilliant and also completely irrelevant. You couldn't possibly know the intentions behind my post unless I verbalized them - so you're just making fallacious claims and assuming they're correct because you're so dead set on "winning."
Or how about the people who every 24 hours skip a year forward in time. Their life span is about 365.25 times longer than everyone else's, but time goes by so much quicker for them that they hardly realize the difference. By all experimental evidence, there's no difference at all!
But still, they insist, "No, our life span is very different. It's more advanced than yours."
>>696829531 I mean, honestly, it was more fun to argue with you when I thought you had a point. As is, you're sort of boring. The other anon I was arguing with had interesting points. I guess Bayesian statistics isn't as useful as I thought it might be.
>>696829765 You keep saying shit like how anyone who doesn't live in africa should have access to these things. And yet, poverty exists in many countries, and they dont' have access to these things. Also, what is so damn hard for you to understand about "if i have $5, and i haven't eaten in 14 hours, i'm going to spend it on food"? And if you don't have the means or ability to cook, YOU'LL GET FAST FOOD BECAUSE YOU NEED TO EAT.
Not everyone can get into shelters, for one. For two, you're just wrong in the fact that every person, everywhere, is going to think about how their food was made, especially if they're a child. >>696829839 Do you really not know? It's the same way we'd compare developed nations. You can look at a nation with no factories or energy production and understand that it is less developed than a country that has those things in working order. To answer your question, if there was a species more advanced than us (not necessarily so advanced we could not see them), they could have things like faster computers, flying cars, teleportation. These are simple answers, and easy to point out why we don't have those things ourselves. If we were the least advanced species on this planet, then we would still, in all likelihood, be able to see at least one species more advanced than ourselves. So no, it would not match the data we have at this time. Unless every other species were so much more advanced that we could not detect them at all. But there is no accounting for that, because we cannot detect them in any way. But just because that situation can exist does not mean that it does exist, and does not invalidate the fact that we can see some species that are less advanced then ourselves.
>>696830452 >if i have $5, and i haven't eaten in 14 hours" Bruh, that's not much, I do that every day. You won't die if you haven't eaten in half a day.
>And if you don't have the means or ability to cook, YOU'LL GET FAST FOOD BECAUSE YOU NEED TO EAT. Being dirt poor does not absorb you of the fact that you need to be a retard to not know how to cook the most basic of meals. Even if you can't afford to cook them you would still know how.
>>696830173 But you did verbalize them (or rather, "textualized" them). I made the claim that you thought it was stupid and pointless. Then, you insulted my reading comprehension and repeated my inference, AND THEN you confirmed that you DO think it is stupid and pointless. So, in your quest to sound smart, you proved me right. Further more, you have made an argument that I am stupid. >knuckle-dragging, sloped-foreheaded, thick-skulled, troglodytic Mongoloids such as yourself can understand Right here, you (with every attempt to sound well read) insulted my intelligence. Also, I don't think i'm smarter than any other man on 4chan. I'm sure there are those smarter than I am. I'm just smarter than you.
>>696830754 You just keep saying the same shit. "you're a retard if you dont know how to cook" but what if you were never taught? "impossibru. unless you live in africa/poverty" so what if you do? "well then you'd still see someone do it in a shelter/can save money to get pots and pans and internet" well what if you need to eat and have only enough money to afford food? "well then you should cook instead"
I mean, seriously. Do you just forget every post except the last one?
>>696830908 Thanks? Which him are you thinking of? Also, i'm glad that at least there is some thought provoking going on. Even the dude arguing about how everything is pointless and unable to be quantified at least inspires some thought. Hell, even captain "You guys are posting and it doesn't matter" is at least somewhat educated.
But then their is the guy whose solution to everything is youtube...I just can't seem to figure out that kind of stupidity.
>>696830924 I'm the guy whose been arguing about your parameters here. What you don't seem to get is that I understand your point, and agree with it. I am aware that it is impossible to determine, without any doubt, that any one species is the most developed because there is the possibility that another species is so far developed that you cannot even perceive them. What you fail to recognize is that isn't part of my argument. My argument is, by all observable data, we are the most advanced species on earth. OBSERVABLE. DATA. >>696830990 Go build one right now. Go try that out. As someone who has actually used stone as a cooking medium, i can tell you that you can't just throw some rocks over a fire and call it good. Also, even if you could build that oven out of dirt, what will you use to fuel it? And will it be able to maintain or even reach the temperature required to cook with?
>>696830905 >but what if you were never taught? As I've already stated, meat goes in the hot pan, vegetables go in the water isn't much to be able to understand, and if you lack what little mental capacity it would require to realise that you do not deserve a place on this planet.
>"impossibru. unless you live in africa/poverty" >so what if you do? Even Africans know that when you kill a Gazelle or what have you that you put it on the fire to cook. They don't need money for that. They use the animal they kill and then drag some sticks together to make a fucking fire.
>"well then you'd still see someone do it in a shelter/can save money to get pots and pans and internet" >well what if you need to eat and have only enough money to afford food? [Be homeless at a shelter] "Hey staff at this homeless centre, I've scrounged together a few dollars for some sausages, but because I'm a retard I don't know how to cook them, can you tell me how?"
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.