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
-
Therealobi1 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...
but how has that worked so far? when someone at the time really believes they are addicted at that time they truly believe they are addicted. to me this is no different from someone who believes they are logging accurately and doing everything they can to lose weight and cant see why they are not.
Well touchy feely support hasn't worked
It will continual to fail and reinforce failure
And there will continue to be "board legislation" against the kind of help that finally made me successful after decades of failure ....straightforward in your face you're wrong on that ....so I continue to put on my twisted, convoluted hat on and try to effect change anyway, despite the required modus operandi rather than because of it ..but I do it less and less...cos semantic twisting hurts my head
not really talking about touchy feely cos that just isnt mfp
its more just laying the facts which is usually done, and not the comments that make the Op feel like a moron.
i dont believe in sugar addiction its just selective overeating, and with most things in time alot of these Ops will see thats all it is and to take control
0 -
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 around0
-
brianpperkins wrote: »"your body becomes addicted to the sugar and doesn't recognize the other stuff as food" ... a post allowed to stand.
MFP is clearly taking a position that countering fallacy based positions is not acceptable while endorsing them is.
is it the countering thats the issue or the way its countered?0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »"your body becomes addicted to the sugar and doesn't recognize the other stuff as food" ... a post allowed to stand.
MFP is clearly taking a position that countering fallacy based positions is not acceptable while endorsing them is.
That comment really bothered me and some people in that thread reinforced that belief.0 -
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
You would not be alone in this.0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »"your body becomes addicted to the sugar and doesn't recognize the other stuff as food" ... a post allowed to stand.
MFP is clearly taking a position that countering fallacy based positions is not acceptable while endorsing them is.
is it the countering thats the issue or the way its countered?
Based on the posts culled from the main forum, it is countering the issue.
0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »"your body becomes addicted to the sugar and doesn't recognize the other stuff as food" ... a post allowed to stand.
MFP is clearly taking a position that countering fallacy based positions is not acceptable while endorsing them is.
is it the countering thats the issue or the way its countered?
Well, allow me to answer your question with a question:
How many posts supporting the concept of sugar addiction got moved over here?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »When someone makes a post saying they are addicted to sugar they are looking for strategies to stop feeling that way IMO. I don't think they are looking for people to say that because they are addicted they have an excuse to overeat.
It doesn't matter what the science says when you have white knuckles for hours from not eating something that puts you over your calorie goal. The science doesn't matter when you have already eaten hundreds or thousands of calories over your goal.
I know the "feelz" are mocked here but in my experience will power and discipline come to me mentally. Those two things do not happen well unless my "feelz" are in the right place.
cosigned.
I'm finding it wildly offensive that people keep suggesting that rejecting (based on all the evidence and logic) that people overeat Snickers because they are "addicted to sugar" means that we are not being helpful or ignoring the "feelz." To the contrary, I think my posts in the relevant threads encourage people to think about what's going on when they struggle and have trouble with specific foods or overeating at particular times or places, and I can relate to the feelz. Presumably most of us who have been overweight can.
Again, I'd put the helpfulness of my posts, and shelley's and winogelato's and many many others above the average person who jumps in those threads to affirm the idea that sugar is super addictive and the problem is, simply, sugar, and doesn't actually provide any help (or says the way to go is to quit all sugar, including fruit and higher sugar veg like carrots, or, similarly, to go keto or give up "processed" foods (plenty of which don't even contain sugar, sigh)).
I find it wildly offensive that the whole thing keeps get repeatedly called a semantics argument, and that even if it was conceded that it is semantics, the connotation that semantics means it can be dismissed as not germane. Then again, that's kind of why I started this thread.
Sure wish people would stop coming in my thread and being so negative.
0 -
I know the "feelz" are mocked here
Are they? I think most posters here are actively sensitive towards the feelings of others and don't disregard them generally (although there are obviously isolated incidents where the boundary gets over stepped.)
What gets challenged or mocked is the idea that a belief rooted in faith somehow makes that belief valid despite evidence to the contrary, or worse, it is superior and should be accepted above an evidence based position. Those positions should be challenged.
There is no monopoly on compassion by people who have a "softer" approach over those that are more direct in manner.
^This.
One of my mantras is I'll validate all feelings, but I won't validate all facts.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...
but how has that worked so far? when someone at the time really believes they are addicted at that time they truly believe they are addicted. to me this is no different from someone who believes they are logging accurately and doing everything they can to lose weight and cant see why they are not.
And then the only duty one the person seeking to counter the erroneous belief should be to convey accurate information in a manner they see fit but which does not slide into hate speech or so forth.
I have been participating in these forums for many years (this is not my first account) and the approach of infantilising posters, even new posters, and an excessive concern for feelings above evidence has more costs than benefits on a global level. There is not less misinformation and flawed beliefs these days, there is more.
One needs only to peruse the "Recent Topics" list to see the evidence of this.
I would argue that's a direct result of the...
...very thing we are forbidden to question or even discuss.0 -
I was responding directly to:
However, you and I are discussing this on a forum that is intended to argue addiction, so while we have trouble with controlling these types of food we must accept that many posters on here would classify that as a fault in character or preference of tastes or food items rather than anything that is an addiction because one cannot be addicted to food.
As I said, some posters seem to think that there are some merits towards the idea of eating addiction. Both of the posters in this particular quote-thread were implying that sugar is physically addictive, and this post seemed to imply that we were being dismissive.
So, I stand by what I said. Some posters, including myself, seem to agree that the idea of eating addiction has merit, but the science is currently pointing to "no" as far as it being physically addictive.
Excuse me ... I never said I was addicted to sugar, I also never said that I believe a physical addiction to sugar exists. If you got the impression that I thought so, then your impression was wrong. The implication that I though some posters on here were dismissive is, however, true.
It wasn't that I thought 'they ' were wrong in saying there was no possibility of a physical addiction to sugar, it was that 'they' responded to what must be a trigger-word for themselves and dismissed anything else I said in my original post on here and many responses to my post were one liners that that were mocking in tone. Now, perhaps my own impression was faulty, however that is the impression I got. In that respect, you and I are alike, we get impressions from what was said and sometimes those impressions are flawed.
My intent in that original post was to share two times where it felt like I might have an addiction with two very different reactions from my doctor about it and how he treated them. One was a true physical addition, the other was not. But to me, I felt equally powerless over their effect on me and needed his help in solving my dilemma.
So, I apologize if my inept comments mislead you or anyone else.0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...
but how has that worked so far? when someone at the time really believes they are addicted at that time they truly believe they are addicted. to me this is no different from someone who believes they are logging accurately and doing everything they can to lose weight and cant see why they are not.
Well touchy feely support hasn't worked
It will continual to fail and reinforce failure
And there will continue to be "board legislation" against the kind of help that finally made me successful after decades of failure ....straightforward in your face you're wrong on that ....so I continue to put on my twisted, convoluted hat on and try to effect change anyway, despite the required modus operandi rather than because of it ..but I do it less and less...cos semantic twisting hurts my head
not really talking about touchy feely cos that just isnt mfp
its more just laying the facts which is usually done, and not the comments that make the Op feel like a moron.
i dont believe in sugar addiction its just selective overeating, and with most things in time alot of these Ops will see thats all it is and to take control
See, I see that as the least humane way of handling it. Letting people persist in ignorance and letting them hit their head against failure until they accept it seems the cruelest way to handle things, but for some reason, that seems to be what MFP is endorsing as positivity. I find it positively guaranteed to negate success. In fact, I worry sometimes that by letting these people fail, there is a chance it will become a person's last attempt to lose weight - "well I tried the sugar addiction treatment and even that didn't work, so I guess I just have to accept I'll die a sugar addict sometime after my fifth bypass and second limb amputation, because there is no beating this, it is an addiction."0 -
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
And so what if it is the goal and they succeed? Then you'll have an echo chamber for the woo and feelz advice so no one's feels are hurt
In any way. Ever.
The business model is probably not negatively affected by this outcome.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »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
And so what if it is the goal and they succeed? Then you'll have an echo chamber for the woo and feelz advice so no one's feels are hurt
In any way. Ever.
The business model is probably not negatively affected by this outcome.
If anything, it would be positively affected, no?
0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...
but how has that worked so far? when someone at the time really believes they are addicted at that time they truly believe they are addicted. to me this is no different from someone who believes they are logging accurately and doing everything they can to lose weight and cant see why they are not.
Well touchy feely support hasn't worked
It will continual to fail and reinforce failure
And there will continue to be "board legislation" against the kind of help that finally made me successful after decades of failure ....straightforward in your face you're wrong on that ....so I continue to put on my twisted, convoluted hat on and try to effect change anyway, despite the required modus operandi rather than because of it ..but I do it less and less...cos semantic twisting hurts my head
not really talking about touchy feely cos that just isnt mfp
its more just laying the facts which is usually done, and not the comments that make the Op feel like a moron.
i dont believe in sugar addiction its just selective overeating, and with most things in time alot of these Ops will see thats all it is and to take control
See, I see that as the least humane way of handling it. Letting people persist in ignorance and letting them hit their head against failure until they accept it seems the cruelest way to handle things, but for some reason, that seems to be what MFP is endorsing as positivity. I find it positively guaranteed to negate success. In fact, I worry sometimes that by letting these people fail, there is a chance it will become a person's last attempt to lose weight - "well I tried the sugar addiction treatment and even that didn't work, so I guess I just have to accept I'll die a sugar addict sometime after my fifth bypass and second limb amputation, because there is no beating this, it is an addiction."Therealobi1 wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...BecomingBane wrote: »How do we strike that balance when the more vocal opposition seems to be shouting down evidence based answers in favor of their anecdotal situations?
Why should it be the duty of one set of posters to strike a balance when another set of posters are not doing so? That is not equality of treatment but rather one group holding a privileged status.
If there is a groups of posters vocally seeking to elevate faith based claims above evidence based claims then the other group should be allowed to tell them openly they are talking nonsense.
Some of you people are way too nice...
but how has that worked so far? when someone at the time really believes they are addicted at that time they truly believe they are addicted. to me this is no different from someone who believes they are logging accurately and doing everything they can to lose weight and cant see why they are not.
Well touchy feely support hasn't worked
It will continual to fail and reinforce failure
And there will continue to be "board legislation" against the kind of help that finally made me successful after decades of failure ....straightforward in your face you're wrong on that ....so I continue to put on my twisted, convoluted hat on and try to effect change anyway, despite the required modus operandi rather than because of it ..but I do it less and less...cos semantic twisting hurts my head
not really talking about touchy feely cos that just isnt mfp
its more just laying the facts which is usually done, and not the comments that make the Op feel like a moron.
i dont believe in sugar addiction its just selective overeating, and with most things in time alot of these Ops will see thats all it is and to take control
See, I see that as the least humane way of handling it. Letting people persist in ignorance and letting them hit their head against failure until they accept it seems the cruelest way to handle things, but for some reason, that seems to be what MFP is endorsing as positivity. I find it positively guaranteed to negate success. In fact, I worry sometimes that by letting these people fail, there is a chance it will become a person's last attempt to lose weight - "well I tried the sugar addiction treatment and even that didn't work, so I guess I just have to accept I'll die a sugar addict sometime after my fifth bypass and second limb amputation, because there is no beating this, it is an addiction."
for some people they will absolutely fail. no different to the op who feels that they have done EVERYTHING possible to lose weight and nothing will work for them and they give up. Hoping that more will later see the light and take control, whether or not they come back to the post to admit that. Not everyone gets cured at the first post0 -
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.0
-
I don't know if this has been discussed in this thread, and I'm not going to go through 8 pages of posts to find out. The only behavioral addiction in DSM 5 is gambling; the only eating disorders are bulimia and anorexia (I'm a licensed counselor so I know the DSM well). Obesity is not considered an eating order or an addiction. There is in the new DSM a binge eating disorder (put simply, bulimia without the vomiting). If it helps you to label your behavior an addiction understand that this is not a medical or psychological label. It's an informal label being used in an internet forum. If you find that labeling your behavior as an addiction is getting in the way of making lasting changes (i.e., it discourages you or becomes an excuse), don't apply it to yourself. There's no medical reason to use the label.0
-
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.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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?0 -
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.
With how much the weight loss industry promotes and relies upon weight loss myths, half truths and downright lies....I honestly don't think that most people DO know the truth.
When I believed that food addiction was very real....I very much believed it. I stauncely defended it. I was wrong and I benefitted from being confronted with science and the truth. It was not just arguing semantics to me and I am better of for it.
If I came to the forums with those beliefs these days...there is more of a from the top down effort to make sure my feelings aren't hurt...and I am thankful no one decided to play white knight for me back then. That's all I am saying.
There is clearly a top down effort by MFP to endorse the concept of "sugar addiction". The stark contrast in how comments on opposing sides of the discussion are handled says it all. IF you say you're addicted to sugar, your posts remain in the main forum. If you counter such an assertion, your posts are moved.
The question I asked earlier remains unanswered by anyone from MFP .... If sugar addiction is not a suitable topic for the main forum then why do the assertions of some remain while the counterpoints disappear?0 -
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 well0 -
why did the other sugar addiction thread just go?0
-
Therealobi1 wrote: »why did the other sugar addiction thread just go?
Shhhhh....0 -
Therealobi1 wrote: »why did the other sugar addiction thread just go?
If you want to discuss said topic, go to this new subforum. When discussion happens, nuke topic. It's almost like MFP is trying to prove the conspiracy theorists right.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Therealobi1 wrote: »why did the other sugar addiction thread just go?
If you want to discuss said topic, go to this new subforum. When discussion happens, nuke topic. It's almost like MFP is trying to prove the conspiracy theorists right.
lol. i am starting to believe its true now0 -
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.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.
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.
Could you please link us to the posts by sugar addiction advocates that were moved over here because of the delivery?
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.
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?0 -
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?
It depends. Did you protect the feelz while correcting the misinformation?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions