Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Arguing Semantics - sugar addiction
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »makingmark wrote: »I think deep down most of us know the truth, it is just uncomfortable. Facing the uncomfortable truth is really the best way to control our weight. Elaborate fantasies that make us feel better aren't really doing us any favors.
agreed but it happens all day everyday, and i am sure many people have been there at one time or another
the feelings i had about losing weight and excising felt real at the time, i can now see they were silly.
we all just wake up at different times and make the change. and some people never do.
But if people are not allowed to point out the somewhat uncomfortable truths, then how is that person supposed to arrive at their epiphany? If all they see is validation of erroneous beliefs, why would they confront their misconceptions?
again its always about delivery and the perception thingy
its not always about what is said its how it is said
i have seen threads in the past that ends up mocking the op that will never end well
There you go..
Its not the correcting of misinformation. .. its that fact that its the only thing people do... while completely ignoring the OP.
The only conspiracies are the ones that are beig made up by those people who dont find the balance between correcting erroneous data and provide help to the OP.
If providing help to the OP is part of the criteria, than shouldn't all replies that say sugar addiction is real end up here, 100% of the time, as lying to someone and reinforcing false information is never going to be helpful?
Instead it seems like the burden is inverted. The assumption is that people saying sugar addiction isn't a thing are automatically assumed unproductive and moved here.
Helping the OP doesnt mean lying to them. I dont know why this concept is so hard but helping people is more than correcting bad information... its provide the next step...
Essentially, so you told them physical addiction doesnt exit... great. .. how do apply that to their situation?
The Enlightenment (known in French as the Siècle des Lumières, the Century of Enlightenment and in German as the Aufklärung) was a philosophical movement which dominated the world of ideas in Europe in the 18th century. The Enlightenment included a scope of ideas centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy, and came to advance ideals such as liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government and ending the abuses of the church and state.[1][2] In France, the central doctrines of the Lumières were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to the principle of absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.[3] The Enlightenment was marked by increasing empiricism, scientific rigor, and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy.[4]
There was a whole era of educating people by telling them to use reason and empirical science.
Telling facts and clearing up misinformation about the person's situation is a good start to conquering a problem.
I'm glad your post ended that way. For a moment I thought your idea of help would involve more guillotines.
Well, a nutrition revolution where every woo peddler gets beheaded wouldn't be soooooo bad, right?0 -
Or the poster who derails threads by constantly posting that the fat you eat is the fat you wear. That's not helpful either.0
-
singingflutelady wrote: »Or the poster who derails threads by constantly posting that the fat you eat is the fat you wear. That's not helpful either.
lol, i have not heard that one before. who makes this stuff up0 -
He is high carb low (as in below minimum) fat vegan0
-
singingflutelady wrote: »Or the poster who derails threads by constantly posting that the fat you eat is the fat you wear. That's not helpful either.
Yes we know that.0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »makingmark wrote: »I think deep down most of us know the truth, it is just uncomfortable. Facing the uncomfortable truth is really the best way to control our weight. Elaborate fantasies that make us feel better aren't really doing us any favors.
agreed but it happens all day everyday, and i am sure many people have been there at one time or another
the feelings i had about losing weight and excising felt real at the time, i can now see they were silly.
we all just wake up at different times and make the change. and some people never do.
But if people are not allowed to point out the somewhat uncomfortable truths, then how is that person supposed to arrive at their epiphany? If all they see is validation of erroneous beliefs, why would they confront their misconceptions?
again its always about delivery and the perception thingy
its not always about what is said its how it is said
i have seen threads in the past that ends up mocking the op that will never end well
There you go..
Its not the correcting of misinformation. .. its that fact that its the only thing people do... while completely ignoring the OP.
Again, as a participant in those threads who tries to correct misinformation but spends much more of my time and energy giving ideas of how to deal with the problem and my own history and what worked for me, I know that this is not true. I am one of those people, and it is absolutely NOT all that I do, or many, many other posters I see posting in those forums.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »makingmark wrote: »I think deep down most of us know the truth, it is just uncomfortable. Facing the uncomfortable truth is really the best way to control our weight. Elaborate fantasies that make us feel better aren't really doing us any favors.
agreed but it happens all day everyday, and i am sure many people have been there at one time or another
the feelings i had about losing weight and excising felt real at the time, i can now see they were silly.
we all just wake up at different times and make the change. and some people never do.
But if people are not allowed to point out the somewhat uncomfortable truths, then how is that person supposed to arrive at their epiphany? If all they see is validation of erroneous beliefs, why would they confront their misconceptions?
again its always about delivery and the perception thingy
its not always about what is said its how it is said
i have seen threads in the past that ends up mocking the op that will never end well
There you go..
Its not the correcting of misinformation. .. its that fact that its the only thing people do... while completely ignoring the OP.
The only conspiracies are the ones that are beig made up by those people who dont find the balance between correcting erroneous data and provide help to the OP.
If providing help to the OP is part of the criteria, than shouldn't all replies that say sugar addiction is real end up here, 100% of the time, as lying to someone and reinforcing false information is never going to be helpful?
Instead it seems like the burden is inverted. The assumption is that people saying sugar addiction isn't a thing are automatically assumed unproductive and moved here.
Helping the OP doesnt mean lying to them. I dont know why this concept is so hard but helping people is more than correcting bad information... its provide the next step...
Essentially, so you told them physical addiction doesnt exit... great. .. how do apply that to their situation?
The Enlightenment (known in French as the Siècle des Lumières, the Century of Enlightenment and in German as the Aufklärung) was a philosophical movement which dominated the world of ideas in Europe in the 18th century. The Enlightenment included a scope of ideas centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy, and came to advance ideals such as liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government and ending the abuses of the church and state.[1][2] In France, the central doctrines of the Lumières were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to the principle of absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.[3] The Enlightenment was marked by increasing empiricism, scientific rigor, and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy.[4]
There was a whole era of educating people by telling them to use reason and empirical science.
Telling facts and clearing up misinformation about the person's situation is a good start to conquering a problem.
I'm glad your post ended that way. For a moment I thought your idea of help would involve more guillotines.
Well, a nutrition revolution where every woo peddler gets beheaded wouldn't be soooooo bad, right?
The enlightenment died before beheadings began... hmm, now why does that suddenly sound relevant?
By the way, the Terror saw beheadings of many different factions - not just woo paddlers would get it. You'd see people right and left lose their head.
NP: Heads Will Roll - Yeah Yeah Yeah.
0 -
Isn't there a phenomenon called "psychological addiction"? I used to see this a lot referring to marijuana, and I think it could be used for sugar, too.0
-
singingflutelady wrote: »He is high carb low (as in below minimum) fat vegan
Body, dietary, or both?
0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »Or the poster who derails threads by constantly posting that the fat you eat is the fat you wear. That's not helpful either.
lol, i have not heard that one before. who makes this stuff up
Susan Powter, I think.
It's cute that kids today are giving tribute to the '90s.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »makingmark wrote: »I think deep down most of us know the truth, it is just uncomfortable. Facing the uncomfortable truth is really the best way to control our weight. Elaborate fantasies that make us feel better aren't really doing us any favors.
agreed but it happens all day everyday, and i am sure many people have been there at one time or another
the feelings i had about losing weight and excising felt real at the time, i can now see they were silly.
we all just wake up at different times and make the change. and some people never do.
But if people are not allowed to point out the somewhat uncomfortable truths, then how is that person supposed to arrive at their epiphany? If all they see is validation of erroneous beliefs, why would they confront their misconceptions?
again its always about delivery and the perception thingy
its not always about what is said its how it is said
i have seen threads in the past that ends up mocking the op that will never end well
There you go..
Its not the correcting of misinformation. .. its that fact that its the only thing people do... while completely ignoring the OP.
The only conspiracies are the ones that are beig made up by those people who dont find the balance between correcting erroneous data and provide help to the OP.
If providing help to the OP is part of the criteria, than shouldn't all replies that say sugar addiction is real end up here, 100% of the time, as lying to someone and reinforcing false information is never going to be helpful?
Instead it seems like the burden is inverted. The assumption is that people saying sugar addiction isn't a thing are automatically assumed unproductive and moved here.
Helping the OP doesnt mean lying to them. I dont know why this concept is so hard but helping people is more than correcting bad information... its provide the next step...
Essentially, so you told them physical addiction doesnt exit... great. .. how do apply that to their situation?
The Enlightenment (known in French as the Siècle des Lumières, the Century of Enlightenment and in German as the Aufklärung) was a philosophical movement which dominated the world of ideas in Europe in the 18th century. The Enlightenment included a scope of ideas centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy, and came to advance ideals such as liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government and ending the abuses of the church and state.[1][2] In France, the central doctrines of the Lumières were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to the principle of absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.[3] The Enlightenment was marked by increasing empiricism, scientific rigor, and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy.[4]
There was a whole era of educating people by telling them to use reason and empirical science.
Telling facts and clearing up misinformation about the person's situation is a good start to conquering a problem.
I'm glad your post ended that way. For a moment I thought your idea of help would involve more guillotines.
Well, a nutrition revolution where every woo peddler gets beheaded wouldn't be soooooo bad, right?
The enlightenment died before beheadings began... hmm, now why does that suddenly sound relevant?
By the way, the Terror saw beheadings of many different factions - not just woo paddlers would get it. You'd see people right and left lose their head.
NP: Heads Will Roll - Yeah Yeah Yeah.
Suddenly I have less respect for facts and wish to just be told what lets my joke stay funny.0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »He is high carb low (as in below minimum) fat vegan
Body, dietary, or both?
Dietary lol0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »He is high carb low (as in below minimum) fat vegan
Body, dietary, or both?
I don't think anyone knows their personal stats, but that poster advocates removing all dietary fat because "the fat you eat is the fat you wear" and only links to vegan propaganda sites as "proof"0 -
I've been thinking about thread "derailment". It's really a natural consequence of human communication. These forums are very clumsy in the way it's handled. Three changes could help a lot without requiring a lot of moderator supervision of conversations.
1. Thread nesting. Seriously, why is this not a thing? Nested threads allow for natural branching of topics.
2. Some sort of agreement mechanism like a (+) or smiley reaction rating. This would help reduce forum bloat.
3. Post tragging. Even if the options are limited.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »makingmark wrote: »I think deep down most of us know the truth, it is just uncomfortable. Facing the uncomfortable truth is really the best way to control our weight. Elaborate fantasies that make us feel better aren't really doing us any favors.
agreed but it happens all day everyday, and i am sure many people have been there at one time or another
the feelings i had about losing weight and excising felt real at the time, i can now see they were silly.
we all just wake up at different times and make the change. and some people never do.
But if people are not allowed to point out the somewhat uncomfortable truths, then how is that person supposed to arrive at their epiphany? If all they see is validation of erroneous beliefs, why would they confront their misconceptions?
again its always about delivery and the perception thingy
its not always about what is said its how it is said
i have seen threads in the past that ends up mocking the op that will never end well
There you go..
Its not the correcting of misinformation. .. its that fact that its the only thing people do... while completely ignoring the OP.
Again, as a participant in those threads who tries to correct misinformation but spends much more of my time and energy giving ideas of how to deal with the problem and my own history and what worked for me, I know that this is not true. I am one of those people, and it is absolutely NOT all that I do, or many, many other posters I see posting in those forums.
This. There seems to be a suggestion that those of us posting in here are all perceived to be the ones who are not interested in striking the balance between correcting misinformation and genuinely trying to help the OP.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »makingmark wrote: »I think deep down most of us know the truth, it is just uncomfortable. Facing the uncomfortable truth is really the best way to control our weight. Elaborate fantasies that make us feel better aren't really doing us any favors.
agreed but it happens all day everyday, and i am sure many people have been there at one time or another
the feelings i had about losing weight and excising felt real at the time, i can now see they were silly.
we all just wake up at different times and make the change. and some people never do.
But if people are not allowed to point out the somewhat uncomfortable truths, then how is that person supposed to arrive at their epiphany? If all they see is validation of erroneous beliefs, why would they confront their misconceptions?
again its always about delivery and the perception thingy
its not always about what is said its how it is said
i have seen threads in the past that ends up mocking the op that will never end well
There you go..
Its not the correcting of misinformation. .. its that fact that its the only thing people do... while completely ignoring the OP.
The only conspiracies are the ones that are beig made up by those people who dont find the balance between correcting erroneous data and provide help to the OP.
If a person bases a position based on misinformation then how is not not helpful to correct that misinformation so the person can then reassess their position?
Funny, i never see threads that would ask if you feel their sugar addiction is real. I see people asking for help to make better choices and get passed said addiction.
I see threads where people flat out state they are addicted to sugar .. a fallacy upon which they base their position.
Funny, I don't see the questions asked of MFP getting answered here. You just side stepped this question and the question of why posts countering sugar addiction get moved/deleted while those claiming it are permitted still goes unanswered.
I only explain things so many times. If people dont want to understand, that is on them.
This is the point that many of us have reached in the forums on topics such as helping those who believe their sugar addiction is why they can't lose weight.
Welcome to the other side.0 -
I'm confused because I've seen so many of the posters on this thread really help the OP and give them alot of time and attention. They don't get alot of thanks for it. Thanks guys.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »makingmark wrote: »I think deep down most of us know the truth, it is just uncomfortable. Facing the uncomfortable truth is really the best way to control our weight. Elaborate fantasies that make us feel better aren't really doing us any favors.
agreed but it happens all day everyday, and i am sure many people have been there at one time or another
the feelings i had about losing weight and excising felt real at the time, i can now see they were silly.
we all just wake up at different times and make the change. and some people never do.
But if people are not allowed to point out the somewhat uncomfortable truths, then how is that person supposed to arrive at their epiphany? If all they see is validation of erroneous beliefs, why would they confront their misconceptions?
again its always about delivery and the perception thingy
its not always about what is said its how it is said
i have seen threads in the past that ends up mocking the op that will never end well
There you go..
Its not the correcting of misinformation. .. its that fact that its the only thing people do... while completely ignoring the OP.
Again, as a participant in those threads who tries to correct misinformation but spends much more of my time and energy giving ideas of how to deal with the problem and my own history and what worked for me, I know that this is not true. I am one of those people, and it is absolutely NOT all that I do, or many, many other posters I see posting in those forums.
This. There seems to be a suggestion that those of us posting in here are all perceived to be the ones who are not interested in striking the balance between correcting misinformation and genuinely trying to help the OP.
It's like the "mean people" accusation. When it's vaguely leveled at the entirety of MFP, everyone is left to wonder if they were the target and many assume they are so they defend themselves against it.
Except in this case, based on which posts have been moved to this dark side of the forums and which posts are left on the main site, we actually have confirmation of which TPTB believe are the problem and which are apparently preferred.
Edit: for clarity.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
singingflutelady wrote: »It almost feels like they are trying to run off the long term, better educated in fitness and nutrition people from this forum. If the boards continue to be all woo filled and we are not allowed to say anything I don't know how much longer I'll be around
This ^^^^^ is what I noticed.0 -
I've been thinking about thread "derailment". It's really a natural consequence of human communication. These forums are very clumsy in the way it's handled. Three changes could help a lot without requiring a lot of moderator supervision of conversations.
1. Thread nesting. Seriously, why is this not a thing? Nested threads allow for natural branching of topics.
2. Some sort of agreement mechanism like a (+) or smiley reaction rating. This would help reduce forum bloat.
3. Post tragging. Even if the options are limited.
What do you think this place is, a functional forum?0 -
2snakeswoman wrote: »Isn't there a phenomenon called "psychological addiction"? I used to see this a lot referring to marijuana, and I think it could be used for sugar, too.
Latest research puts food addiction into a behavioural context @2snakeswoman
Behavioural addictions have different therapeutic responses to physical addiction
This thread is about semantics, that's the reason for the thread to begin with
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »makingmark wrote: »I think deep down most of us know the truth, it is just uncomfortable. Facing the uncomfortable truth is really the best way to control our weight. Elaborate fantasies that make us feel better aren't really doing us any favors.
agreed but it happens all day everyday, and i am sure many people have been there at one time or another
the feelings i had about losing weight and excising felt real at the time, i can now see they were silly.
we all just wake up at different times and make the change. and some people never do.
But if people are not allowed to point out the somewhat uncomfortable truths, then how is that person supposed to arrive at their epiphany? If all they see is validation of erroneous beliefs, why would they confront their misconceptions?
again its always about delivery and the perception thingy
its not always about what is said its how it is said
i have seen threads in the past that ends up mocking the op that will never end well
There you go..
Its not the correcting of misinformation. .. its that fact that its the only thing people do... while completely ignoring the OP.
The only conspiracies are the ones that are beig made up by those people who dont find the balance between correcting erroneous data and provide help to the OP.
If providing help to the OP is part of the criteria, than shouldn't all replies that say sugar addiction is real end up here, 100% of the time, as lying to someone and reinforcing false information is never going to be helpful?
Instead it seems like the burden is inverted. The assumption is that people saying sugar addiction isn't a thing are automatically assumed unproductive and moved here.
Helping the OP doesnt mean lying to them. I dont know why this concept is so hard but helping people is more than correcting bad information... its provide the next step...
Essentially, so you told them physical addiction doesnt exit... great. .. how do apply that to their situation?
Which usually includes strategies to deal with cutting to much, IIFYM or the most common - "if you want to continue to cut xxx, that's fine, but understand that other long term strategies may also work...."
And unfortunately this is the part that gets left out. At least more often than not in thr gd&w section.
We have a tendency to focus on the controversial and probably doubly so for mods, because that is what gets reported.
But as far as I've seen in every single sugar addiction thread there are those that do, each and every time, focus less on the semantics of use and more on how focusing either on 1) how a cognitive crutch of an external cause ("addiction") may (/or may not) be counter productive to managing long term goals 2) non-restrictive long term strategies that do not try to cut out a major food item may be more successful.
Perhaps those posts don't get noticed as much? Which is ironic and saddening, if only the abrasive message is impactful then the learning is that one should be MORE combative to get a point across. As an aside, communication strategy of current American elections seems to be right in line with this. We should be "more Trump, all Trump, all the time!"
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »makingmark wrote: »I think deep down most of us know the truth, it is just uncomfortable. Facing the uncomfortable truth is really the best way to control our weight. Elaborate fantasies that make us feel better aren't really doing us any favors.
agreed but it happens all day everyday, and i am sure many people have been there at one time or another
the feelings i had about losing weight and excising felt real at the time, i can now see they were silly.
we all just wake up at different times and make the change. and some people never do.
But if people are not allowed to point out the somewhat uncomfortable truths, then how is that person supposed to arrive at their epiphany? If all they see is validation of erroneous beliefs, why would they confront their misconceptions?
again its always about delivery and the perception thingy
its not always about what is said its how it is said
i have seen threads in the past that ends up mocking the op that will never end well
There you go..
Its not the correcting of misinformation. .. its that fact that its the only thing people do... while completely ignoring the OP.
The only conspiracies are the ones that are beig made up by those people who dont find the balance between correcting erroneous data and provide help to the OP.
If providing help to the OP is part of the criteria, than shouldn't all replies that say sugar addiction is real end up here, 100% of the time, as lying to someone and reinforcing false information is never going to be helpful?
Instead it seems like the burden is inverted. The assumption is that people saying sugar addiction isn't a thing are automatically assumed unproductive and moved here.
Helping the OP doesnt mean lying to them. I dont know why this concept is so hard but helping people is more than correcting bad information... its provide the next step...
Essentially, so you told them physical addiction doesnt exit... great. .. how do apply that to their situation?
The Enlightenment (known in French as the Siècle des Lumières, the Century of Enlightenment and in German as the Aufklärung) was a philosophical movement which dominated the world of ideas in Europe in the 18th century. The Enlightenment included a scope of ideas centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy, and came to advance ideals such as liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government and ending the abuses of the church and state.[1][2] In France, the central doctrines of the Lumières were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to the principle of absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.[3] The Enlightenment was marked by increasing empiricism, scientific rigor, and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy.[4]
There was a whole era of educating people by telling them to use reason and empirical science.
Telling facts and clearing up misinformation about the person's situation is a good start to conquering a problem.
I'm glad your post ended that way. For a moment I thought your idea of help would involve more guillotines.
Well, a nutrition revolution where every woo peddler gets beheaded wouldn't be soooooo bad, right?
The enlightenment died before beheadings began... hmm, now why does that suddenly sound relevant?
By the way, the Terror saw beheadings of many different factions - not just woo paddlers would get it. You'd see people right and left lose their head.
NP: Heads Will Roll - Yeah Yeah Yeah.
Suddenly I have less respect for facts and wish to just be told what lets my joke stay funny.
I'm sorry.
"Let them eat cake."
"Apres moi, le deluge!"0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »makingmark wrote: »I think deep down most of us know the truth, it is just uncomfortable. Facing the uncomfortable truth is really the best way to control our weight. Elaborate fantasies that make us feel better aren't really doing us any favors.
agreed but it happens all day everyday, and i am sure many people have been there at one time or another
the feelings i had about losing weight and excising felt real at the time, i can now see they were silly.
we all just wake up at different times and make the change. and some people never do.
But if people are not allowed to point out the somewhat uncomfortable truths, then how is that person supposed to arrive at their epiphany? If all they see is validation of erroneous beliefs, why would they confront their misconceptions?
again its always about delivery and the perception thingy
its not always about what is said its how it is said
i have seen threads in the past that ends up mocking the op that will never end well
There you go..
Its not the correcting of misinformation. .. its that fact that its the only thing people do... while completely ignoring the OP.
The only conspiracies are the ones that are beig made up by those people who dont find the balance between correcting erroneous data and provide help to the OP.
If providing help to the OP is part of the criteria, than shouldn't all replies that say sugar addiction is real end up here, 100% of the time, as lying to someone and reinforcing false information is never going to be helpful?
Instead it seems like the burden is inverted. The assumption is that people saying sugar addiction isn't a thing are automatically assumed unproductive and moved here.
Helping the OP doesnt mean lying to them. I dont know why this concept is so hard but helping people is more than correcting bad information... its provide the next step...
Essentially, so you told them physical addiction doesnt exit... great. .. how do apply that to their situation?
The Enlightenment (known in French as the Siècle des Lumières, the Century of Enlightenment and in German as the Aufklärung) was a philosophical movement which dominated the world of ideas in Europe in the 18th century. The Enlightenment included a scope of ideas centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy, and came to advance ideals such as liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government and ending the abuses of the church and state.[1][2] In France, the central doctrines of the Lumières were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to the principle of absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.[3] The Enlightenment was marked by increasing empiricism, scientific rigor, and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy.[4]
There was a whole era of educating people by telling them to use reason and empirical science.
Telling facts and clearing up misinformation about the person's situation is a good start to conquering a problem.
I'm glad your post ended that way. For a moment I thought your idea of help would involve more guillotines.
Well, a nutrition revolution where every woo peddler gets beheaded wouldn't be soooooo bad, right?
The enlightenment died before beheadings began... hmm, now why does that suddenly sound relevant?
By the way, the Terror saw beheadings of many different factions - not just woo paddlers would get it. You'd see people right and left lose their head.
NP: Heads Will Roll - Yeah Yeah Yeah.
Suddenly I have less respect for facts and wish to just be told what lets my joke stay funny.
I'm sorry.
"Let them eat cake kale."
"Apres moi, le deluge!"
fixed it.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »makingmark wrote: »I think deep down most of us know the truth, it is just uncomfortable. Facing the uncomfortable truth is really the best way to control our weight. Elaborate fantasies that make us feel better aren't really doing us any favors.
agreed but it happens all day everyday, and i am sure many people have been there at one time or another
the feelings i had about losing weight and excising felt real at the time, i can now see they were silly.
we all just wake up at different times and make the change. and some people never do.
But if people are not allowed to point out the somewhat uncomfortable truths, then how is that person supposed to arrive at their epiphany? If all they see is validation of erroneous beliefs, why would they confront their misconceptions?
again its always about delivery and the perception thingy
its not always about what is said its how it is said
i have seen threads in the past that ends up mocking the op that will never end well
There you go..
Its not the correcting of misinformation. .. its that fact that its the only thing people do... while completely ignoring the OP.
The only conspiracies are the ones that are beig made up by those people who dont find the balance between correcting erroneous data and provide help to the OP.
If providing help to the OP is part of the criteria, than shouldn't all replies that say sugar addiction is real end up here, 100% of the time, as lying to someone and reinforcing false information is never going to be helpful?
Instead it seems like the burden is inverted. The assumption is that people saying sugar addiction isn't a thing are automatically assumed unproductive and moved here.
Helping the OP doesnt mean lying to them. I dont know why this concept is so hard but helping people is more than correcting bad information... its provide the next step...
Essentially, so you told them physical addiction doesnt exit... great. .. how do apply that to their situation?
Which usually includes strategies to deal with cutting to much, IIFYM or the most common - "if you want to continue to cut xxx, that's fine, but understand that other long term strategies may also work...."
And unfortunately this is the part that gets left out. At least more often than not in thr gd&w section.
We have a tendency to focus on the controversial and probably doubly so for mods, because that is what gets reported.
But as far as I've seen in every single sugar addiction thread there are those that do, each and every time, focus less on the semantics of use and more on how focusing either on 1) how a cognitive crutch of an external cause ("addiction") may (/or may not) be counter productive to managing long term goals 2) non-restrictive long term strategies that do not try to cut out a major food item may be more successful.
Perhaps those posts don't get noticed as much? Which is ironic and saddening, if only the abrasive message is impactful then the learning is that one should be MORE combative to get a point across. As an aside, communication strategy of current American elections seems to be right in line with this. We should be "more Trump, all Trump, all the time!"
Oh no you di'nt0 -
Make MFP great again!0
-
Came here to argue about useful v. useless replies to those misinformed about food "addiction". Found that my opinion has already been stated more eloquently than what I could've done and agreed to by the majority.
Sort of disappointed... I was feeling snippy this afternoon.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Make MFP great again!
I feel like this should be a first post from a SparkPeople user.0 -
ManiacalLaugh wrote: »Came here to argue about useful v. useless replies to those misinformed about food "addiction". Found that my opinion has already been stated more eloquently than what I could've done and agreed to by the majority.
Sort of disappointed... I was feeling snippy this afternoon.
You aren't dissapointed at all and you know it - since you might have been looking for an argument. 0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions