The Clean Eating Myth
Options
Replies
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
I'm sorry, but labeling a logical fallacy for what it is really is not a mass of people incorporating talking points. It's just people knowing about the tenets of logical fallacies. They exist outside of that web page.
A few years ago, during the course of a few weeks, 20-30 national different news anchors and talk show hosts used the word "gravitas". Someone put together a montage of news clips, just one person after another saying "gravitas", it was hilarious. Sure, some of them possibly legitimately knew the word, but the fact that a bunch of people use the same obscure word within the same span of time to describe similar events is not a coincidence, it is a pattern. "Look everyone, I discovered a cool word"! "Hey, I want to use a cool word too!"
This IIFYM site is the same thing, it isn't garden-variety debate knowledge everyone is utilizing, somebody provided talking points on how to debate a certain way, and a lot of people practically copied and pasted it into social media forums. Please review that website, it is pretty obvious.
you will learn all of those fallacies in the first month of a freshman logic course
or in the first 5 minutes of looking up "list of fallacies" on Wikipedia
I'm honestly a little concerned that this is being treated as some sort of specialized and arcane knowledge.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
I'm sorry, but labeling a logical fallacy for what it is really is not a mass of people incorporating talking points. It's just people knowing about the tenets of logical fallacies. They exist outside of that web page.
A few years ago, during the course of a few weeks, 20-30 national different news anchors and talk show hosts used the word "gravitas". Someone put together a montage of news clips, just one person after another saying "gravitas", it was hilarious. Sure, some of them possibly legitimately knew the word, but the fact that a bunch of people use the same obscure word within the same span of time to describe similar events is not a coincidence, it is a pattern. "Look everyone, I discovered a cool word"! "Hey, I want to use a cool word too!"
This IIFYM site is the same thing, it isn't garden-variety debate knowledge everyone is utilizing, somebody provided talking points on how to debate a certain way, and a lot of people practically copied and pasted it into social media forums. Please review that website, it is pretty obvious.
Oh, you sweet summer child. Just because you think it's true won't make it so.
I've been on other online forums and logical terms have been bandied about with abandon.
If you think this is the only place they come up, think again.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
I'm sorry, but labeling a logical fallacy for what it is really is not a mass of people incorporating talking points. It's just people knowing about the tenets of logical fallacies. They exist outside of that web page.
A few years ago, during the course of a few weeks, 20-30 national different news anchors and talk show hosts used the word "gravitas". Someone put together a montage of news clips, just one person after another saying "gravitas", it was hilarious. Sure, some of them possibly legitimately knew the word, but the fact that a bunch of people use the same obscure word within the same span of time to describe similar events is not a coincidence, it is a pattern. "Look everyone, I discovered a cool word"! "Hey, I want to use a cool word too!"
This IIFYM site is the same thing, it isn't garden-variety debate knowledge everyone is utilizing, somebody provided talking points on how to debate a certain way, and a lot of people practically copied and pasted it into social media forums. Please review that website, it is pretty obvious.
you will learn all of those fallacies in the first month of a freshman logic course
or in the first 5 minutes of looking up "list of fallacies" on Wikipedia
I'm honestly a little concerned that this is being treated as some sort of specialized and arcane knowledge.
lol the struggle is real0 -
Talking of myths, the whole 'detox' thing should be included! The body 'detoxes' itself, it's very good at it. Toxins will be flushed/eliminated from your system whatever you eat, though obviously it's better if they were never there in the first place.
It's tempting isn't it to believe that if I eat/drink those wonderful green smoothies for three days then I'll clean myself of all the bad stuff eaten over Christmas or Diwali or Hanukkah or that great hen weekend last week but it's just a mind pill that clever people make money from.
In this particular case the processed sugar and 'bad' fats in the donuts may well, over a long period, inhibit the journey to a healthy body AND the carrots (with the general healthy diet implied) may well improve the whole system so that cardio exercise etc is EASIER to maintain but the simple fact is calories are fuel and that's that.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »So, I'm starting to think, from the turn of this thread, that person A is either intimidated by the use of logic and resorts to ad hominems to discredit person B when he uses logic when they are discussing their food plans OR he just can't support his assertions about the health claims he's been making.
It hasn't passed my notice that none of the questions about health have been answered.
I thought the answer was C...
Well, the weight loss thing sort of got answered by default, but then the clean eating defenders started asserting that A would be "healthier". Some support for that position was asked for and was never provided.
It has to be remembered that it was stipulated that both A and B were hitting their macros and micros.
Although judging from the turn the conversation took, you would have thought it was stipulated that the non-clean eater was mainlining Oreo filling and the nougat from Snickers bars and nothing else.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »So, I'm starting to think, from the turn of this thread, that person A is either intimidated by the use of logic and resorts to ad hominems to discredit person B when he uses logic when they are discussing their food plans OR he just can't support his assertions about the health claims he's been making.
It hasn't passed my notice that none of the questions about health have been answered.
I thought the answer was C...
Well, the weight loss thing sort of got answered by default, but then the clean eating defenders started asserting that A would be "healthier". Some support for that position was asked for and was never provided.
It has to be remembered that it was stipulated that both A and B were hitting their macros and micros.
Although judging from the turn the conversation took, you would have thought it was stipulated that the non-clean eater was mainlining Oreo filling and the nougat from Snickers bars and nothing else.
Well, they had to move the goalposts to make room for the straw man so they could answer the question the way they wanted to.
Tried to resist. Couldn't help myself.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
I'm sorry, but labeling a logical fallacy for what it is really is not a mass of people incorporating talking points. It's just people knowing about the tenets of logical fallacies. They exist outside of that web page.
A few years ago, during the course of a few weeks, 20-30 national different news anchors and talk show hosts used the word "gravitas". Someone put together a montage of news clips, just one person after another saying "gravitas", it was hilarious. Sure, some of them possibly legitimately knew the word, but the fact that a bunch of people use the same obscure word within the same span of time to describe similar events is not a coincidence, it is a pattern. "Look everyone, I discovered a cool word"! "Hey, I want to use a cool word too!"
This IIFYM site is the same thing, it isn't garden-variety debate knowledge everyone is utilizing, somebody provided talking points on how to debate a certain way, and a lot of people practically copied and pasted it into social media forums. Please review that website, it is pretty obvious.
What is wrong with learning new words and incorporating those into your vocabulary?
Social media is another forum for debate, it stands to reason that the same debate skills/terms learned in high school, college, life in general, would apply appropriately.
It appears you are using the first rule on the site you posted to derail the discussion and discredit those whom you disagree with, the conversation is now about the individuals vocabulary, and not the facts to support your viewpoint.
1. Argumentum ad hominem – denying your opponent’s argument by attacking personal features of his.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
I'm sorry, but labeling a logical fallacy for what it is really is not a mass of people incorporating talking points. It's just people knowing about the tenets of logical fallacies. They exist outside of that web page.
you seem really focused on reiterating the fact that the IIFYM website is not the only place to learn about logic
and discussing your logic skillz
Eh, try again. I'm baffled, frankly. Have any of you people ever been anywhere else on the internet?mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.mamapeach910 wrote: »Is it time for a tin foil hat picture? I just can't get over the idea that people applying logic in discussions is now presumed by their opponents to be, as a matter of course, from a web site, and that none of those people have any skills, education, or knowledge from any other source.
It's gotta be a conspiracy of IIFYM of brainless sheeple, spouting doctrine. No other possibility could exist.
What the actual...
Let's throw in a heaping dash of irony, considering the fact that clean and Paleo eaters are all spouting dogma gleaned from books, blogs, and websites.mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
At some point every anti-clean-eating MFP user started parroting the term "straw man" incessantly in these forums, and I couldn't figure out why, until I was forwarded this link.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
This also probably explains why an "argumentum ab auctoritate" was dropped by someone who didn't give the impression that Latin was in his educational background, lol. Just read these talking points, and go forth into battle, IIFYM warriors
ROFL!!
Do I hear anyone saying: touché!?
I was disappointed that "moving the goalposts" wasn't in that debating guide, it is so relentlessly repeated I am sure that it was inspired by a similar "Debating 101" source. It just shows that sometimes jargon can be mistaken for substance.
Did I miss the part where you added substance to this thread?
And when you say "jargon" do you mean phrases like "anti-clean-eating"?
I'm sure you did miss the substance. It was a nuanced post, and those who were intended to get it got it, sorry.
Oh look. Subtle inferences that I am of a lesser intelligence veiled in poorly worded sarcasm. Bish, please.
Bambi likes to bicker...
Very creative! Luv it!0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »So, I'm starting to think, from the turn of this thread, that person A is either intimidated by the use of logic and resorts to ad hominems to discredit person B when he uses logic when they are discussing their food plans OR he just can't support his assertions about the health claims he's been making.
It hasn't passed my notice that none of the questions about health have been answered.
I thought the answer was C...
Well, the weight loss thing sort of got answered by default, but then the clean eating defenders started asserting that A would be "healthier". Some support for that position was asked for and was never provided.
It has to be remembered that it was stipulated that both A and B were hitting their macros and micros.
Although judging from the turn the conversation took, you would have thought it was stipulated that the non-clean eater was mainlining Oreo filling and the nougat from Snickers bars and nothing else.
Well, they had to move the goalposts to make room for the straw man so they could answer the question the way they wanted to.
Tried to resist. Couldn't help myself.
You and your talking points!0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »So, I'm starting to think, from the turn of this thread, that person A is either intimidated by the use of logic and resorts to ad hominems to discredit person B when he uses logic when they are discussing their food plans OR he just can't support his assertions about the health claims he's been making.
It hasn't passed my notice that none of the questions about health have been answered.
I thought the answer was C...
Well, the weight loss thing sort of got answered by default, but then the clean eating defenders started asserting that A would be "healthier". Some support for that position was asked for and was never provided.
It has to be remembered that it was stipulated that both A and B were hitting their macros and micros.
Although judging from the turn the conversation took, you would have thought it was stipulated that the non-clean eater was mainlining Oreo filling and the nougat from Snickers bars and nothing else.
Well, they had to move the goalposts to make room for the straw man so they could answer the question the way they wanted to.
Tried to resist. Couldn't help myself.
You and your talking points!
Where can I sign up for your newsletter? Can I haz thru the emails?
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
I'm sorry, but labeling a logical fallacy for what it is really is not a mass of people incorporating talking points. It's just people knowing about the tenets of logical fallacies. They exist outside of that web page.
A few years ago, during the course of a few weeks, 20-30 national different news anchors and talk show hosts used the word "gravitas". Someone put together a montage of news clips, just one person after another saying "gravitas", it was hilarious. Sure, some of them possibly legitimately knew the word, but the fact that a bunch of people use the same obscure word within the same span of time to describe similar events is not a coincidence, it is a pattern. "Look everyone, I discovered a cool word"! "Hey, I want to use a cool word too!"
This IIFYM site is the same thing, it isn't garden-variety debate knowledge everyone is utilizing, somebody provided talking points on how to debate a certain way, and a lot of people practically copied and pasted it into social media forums. Please review that website, it is pretty obvious.
What emails are you talking about? What talking points? What in the world are you talking about?
He's talking about this:
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
He apparently thinks the IIFYM site emails this out to all of us "anti-clean eaters" and that we all get together online to formulate diabolical plans to take on the rest of MFP.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
I think it is great that people want to sharpen their debating skills. It just strikes me as odd that 1) emails containing a series of talking points need to be issued in order to further the IIFYM / anti-clean eating cause on social media sites, and 2) that masses of people incorporate the exact wording of the talking points into their arguments over and over, it is just sort of cult-ish.
I'm sorry, but labeling a logical fallacy for what it is really is not a mass of people incorporating talking points. It's just people knowing about the tenets of logical fallacies. They exist outside of that web page.
you seem really focused on reiterating the fact that the IIFYM website is not the only place to learn about logic
and discussing your logic skillz
Eh, try again. I'm baffled, frankly. Have any of you people ever been anywhere else on the internet?mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.mamapeach910 wrote: »Is it time for a tin foil hat picture? I just can't get over the idea that people applying logic in discussions is now presumed by their opponents to be, as a matter of course, from a web site, and that none of those people have any skills, education, or knowledge from any other source.
It's gotta be a conspiracy of IIFYM of brainless sheeple, spouting doctrine. No other possibility could exist.
What the actual...
Let's throw in a heaping dash of irony, considering the fact that clean and Paleo eaters are all spouting dogma gleaned from books, blogs, and websites.mamapeach910 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You people actually think that no one has an education/life outside of the IIFYM website and could possibly have ever learned about logical fallacies any other way?
Too ridiculous to even discuss.
As for debate/discussion? Discussions are productive if they're kept on point and logical. Introducing terminology commonly used in debating does not a debate make. It just keeps things on track.
No, that's not what I meant. I never learned about debate and the rules of debate, and don't know the terminology so that link was educational for me, and it was also amusing because a) there exists a page telling people how to debate a certain philosophy of eating, and b) it reads almost as if ndj wrote it himself.
For what its worth IIFYM makes sense to me, but the debate-type posts take all the fun out of just talking about something.
Gotcha. See, I don't have formal debate training, but in general conversation, I've come across people using terminology like "moving the goalposts" and "straw man" before.
I also... and this is not to brag or anything... have a very naturally logical mind. I can spot a logical fallacy even if I don't know how to categorize it. I can feel that it's wrong. I've been like this since I was a kid. Years on the internet have caused me to just look things up to satisfy my curiosity. This is just how I talk.
The thing is though, a lot of the other posters here? Are really highly educated. They're used to thinking that way because their background is ingrained in them.
As I stated earlier, it's not really an attempt to turn things into a formal debate. Pointing out errors in logic in a discussion is an attempt to keep things on point.
All that proves is that when I'm baffled, I repeat myself.
Which is in fact, quite true. It's a really annoying habit that I know I have.
I honestly am truly taken by the stance this guy is taking.
0 -
Back to something resembling the original topic please, or this thread is going to become another unfortunate victim of Friday.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Yes, and that's I think a real missed opportunity with this forum. A debate is good at school, when you're trying to score points and show how clever you are by making the other guy look stupid. It's what politicians do. A dialogue, on the other hand, where people actually freely exchange ideas and extract the good parts from one another's viewpoints to enlarge their own, is so much more useful and stimulating. But that rarely seems to happen here.
Yes, I am surprised and disappointed to see the tone here is that of a political forum, where people aren't interested in sharing information, but scoring points.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Yes, and that's I think a real missed opportunity with this forum. A debate is good at school, when you're trying to score points and show how clever you are by making the other guy look stupid. It's what politicians do. A dialogue, on the other hand, where people actually freely exchange ideas and extract the good parts from one another's viewpoints to enlarge their own, is so much more useful and stimulating. But that rarely seems to happen here.
Yes, I am surprised and disappointed to see the tone here is that of a political forum, where people aren't interested in sharing information, but scoring points.
I have learned so much great information here.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Yes, and that's I think a real missed opportunity with this forum. A debate is good at school, when you're trying to score points and show how clever you are by making the other guy look stupid. It's what politicians do. A dialogue, on the other hand, where people actually freely exchange ideas and extract the good parts from one another's viewpoints to enlarge their own, is so much more useful and stimulating. But that rarely seems to happen here.
Yes, I am surprised and disappointed to see the tone here is that of a political forum, where people aren't interested in sharing information, but scoring points.
You're saying this as if grandstanding against how the forums function here isn't trying to score points.
0 -
Personally, I've never been on the IIFYM website except to use the TDEE calculator. I was not aware they had a forum. But I do know these terms, like logical fallacy and strawman and false equivalence and appeal to emotion.
I learned them in college. In philosophy classes. They are terms regarding logical (and sometimes illogical) argument.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Yes, and that's I think a real missed opportunity with this forum. A debate is good at school, when you're trying to score points and show how clever you are by making the other guy look stupid. It's what politicians do. A dialogue, on the other hand, where people actually freely exchange ideas and extract the good parts from one another's viewpoints to enlarge their own, is so much more useful and stimulating. But that rarely seems to happen here.
Yes, I am surprised and disappointed to see the tone here is that of a political forum, where people aren't interested in sharing information, but scoring points.
I have learned so much great information here.
much information. Dawn is the optimal soap for a clean diet0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions