|
rufusandcompany
Feb 6, 2006, 11:49 PM
Post #26 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Posts: 2618
|
In reply to: Nooooo, and I think if you can't spot the obvious leanings in both tests you are a moron. Wrong! The problem with the test is not a bias, but that some of the tester's assertions are incorrect - the food assertion being one.
In reply to: I don;t think you bothered to read what I wrote, guess you may be a free thinker but not a very observant one, and one who lacks a sense of humor as well, haha. Wrong again, which proves your gullibility, because it should have been obvious to you that my original accusation was meant in jest. You see. My tactic succeeded where Thorne's miserably failed, because I never underestimate a person's intelligence. Thorne's sophomoric attempt failed, because he gave away the punch line in the telling of his joke. All in all, I agree that it was a silly test, although I still thought it was fun - just not to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Feb 7, 2006, 12:50 PM
Post #27 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Wrong again, which proves your gullibility, because it should have been obvious to you that my original accusation was meant in jest. You see. My tactic succeeded where Thorne's miserably failed, because I never underestimate a person's intelligence. Thorne's sophomoric attempt failed, because he gave away the punch line in the telling of his joke. All in all, I agree that it was a silly test, although I still thought it was fun - just not to be taken seriously. I think the measure of humour (and this is just my opinion) should be if others consider it funny..... or whether they just think the "comedian" involved is a self-absorbed, arrogant twit..... not that this has any relevance to the quoted post.
|
|
|
|
|
kubi
Feb 7, 2006, 3:40 PM
Post #28 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Posts: 815
|
In reply to: In reply to: Wrong again, which proves your gullibility, because it should have been obvious to you that my original accusation was meant in jest. You see. My tactic succeeded where Thorne's miserably failed, because I never underestimate a person's intelligence. Thorne's sophomoric attempt failed, because he gave away the punch line in the telling of his joke. All in all, I agree that it was a silly test, although I still thought it was fun - just not to be taken seriously. I think the measure of humour (and this is just my opinion) should be if others consider it funny..... or whether they just think the "comedian" involved is a self-absorbed, arrogant twit..... not that this has any relevance to the quoted post. I consider Thorne's post to be funny, mostly for the use of the word "twit" in a sentance.
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Feb 7, 2006, 5:33 PM
Post #29 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
My GF score was a 96. That's what you get from reading a lot, I guess. I'm a liberal airhead, though. Seems to me that if you flame the test, you flame for one of two reasons: the answers that seem too good to be true are obviously false if you didn't already know, or you're perceived as being told you're ignorant, which people never like. So, whatever. But I had my ego puffed up a bit today, so yay.
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Feb 7, 2006, 6:02 PM
Post #30 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
In reply to: In reply to: All foods and beverages are safe to consume in moderation and can be part of a balanced diet. The argument you are missing here is the "balanced diet" part. "Foods" such as sodas or candy are not part of a balanced diet by definition. There's no balance when you add a non-nutritional sugar. Nothing to balance with. Balance infers that for this nutrient-rich food, there is one to balance it - a tomato for a spaghetti, an apple for a carrot. Not Twinkies for milk or something like that. YOu can't balance something inherently bad for you. That's the point of the statement.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 7, 2006, 6:17 PM
Post #31 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: YOu can't balance something inherently bad for you. That's the point of the statement. Defending it by suggesting sugar is not part of a balanced diet and is inherently bad for humans doesn't seem to be the path of success. DMT
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Feb 7, 2006, 6:19 PM
Post #32 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: All foods and beverages are safe to consume in moderation and can be part of a balanced diet. The argument you are missing here is the "balanced diet" part. "Foods" such as sodas or candy are not part of a balanced diet by definition. There's no balance when you add a non-nutritional sugar. Nothing to balance with. Balance infers that for this nutrient-rich food, there is one to balance it - a tomato for a spaghetti, an apple for a carrot. Not Twinkies for milk or something like that. YOu can't balance something inherently bad for you. That's the point of the statement. But if you consume in moderation, do they really disrupt the balance? I don't believe so.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Feb 7, 2006, 6:23 PM
Post #33 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Inherently bad for you? I don't think soda is bad for you. I don't think a snickers bar is bad for you. I wouldn't describe them as foods for optimal physical performance and well-being, but I wouldn't say they are bad for you either.
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Feb 7, 2006, 6:43 PM
Post #34 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
Dingus is right. I don't feel like arguing this with anyone. It's relative to your diet. If you're regularly consuming lots of foods with preservatives, caffiene, transfatty acids, etc in them, soda or a candy bar isn't bad for you. But, consider this: - Sodas contain phosphoric acid which inhibit digestion ability. - Sugar increases insulin levels (diabetes is on the rise) which inhibits digestion and bodily function, provides extra calories, and yes, addiction - I know literal soda addicts. - Diet sodas have aspartame generally, which does all kinds of nasty things from brain tumors to emotional disorders. I'm a bit afraid of "Splenda" as well - I have first hand experience with migraines and nausea, which are two side affects tracked by this chemical. - Caffiene is bad for you. Period - it's addictive, and it also is linked to all kinds of bad things and again, it inhibits bodily function by limiting absorption among other things. - Tap water is used in sodas - and where are many sodas packaged? What's in that tap water that makes many of you use Brita filters? - Then you got transfatty acids in your candy bar . . . Eating straight organic sugar might not be inherently bad for you, but the things sugar finds itself in is. but anyway - sugar is simply not part of a balance diet. It's not. YOu don't need it, so it's not BALANCED DIET. That's the point.
|
|
|
|
|
tradgal
Feb 7, 2006, 6:49 PM
Post #35 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2005
Posts: 384
|
Jumping on the band wagon here...but the food pyramid does include fatty (non nutritional) foods. Or as I just learned the term "discretionary calories." I also just learned that it's no longer the "food Pyramid" but "my pyramid." When did that happen?
In reply to: What are discretionary calories? You need a certain number of calories to keep your body functioning and provide energy for physical activities. Think of the calories you need for energy like money you have to spend. Each person has a total calorie “budget.” This budget can be divided into “essentials” and “extras.” With a financial budget, the essentials are items like rent and food. The extras are things like movies and vacations. In a calorie budget, the “essentials” are the minimum calories required to meet your nutrient needs. By selecting the lowest fat and no-sugar-added forms of foods in each food group you would make the best nutrient “buys.” Depending on the foods you choose, you may be able to spend more calories than the amount required to meet your nutrient needs. These calories are the “extras” that can be used on luxuries like solid fats, added sugars, and alcohol, or on more food from any food group. They are your “discretionary calories.” Each person has an allowance for some discretionary calories. But, many people have used up this allowance before lunch-time! Most discretionary calorie allowances are very small, between 100 and 300 calories, especially for those who are not physically active. For many people, the discretionary calorie allowance is totally used by the foods they choose in each food group, such as higher fat meats, cheeses, whole milk, or sweetened bakery products. You can use your discretionary calorie allowance to: Eat more foods from any food group than the food guide recommends. Eat higher calorie forms of foods—those that contain solid fats or added sugars. Examples are whole milk, cheese, sausage, biscuits, sweetened cereal, and sweetened yogurt. Add fats or sweeteners to foods. Examples are sauces, salad dressings, sugar, syrup, and butter. Eat or drink items that are mostly fats, caloric sweeteners, and/or alcohol, such as candy, soda, wine, and beer. For example, assume your calorie budget is 2,000 calories per day. Of these calories, you need to spend at least 1,735 calories for essential nutrients, if you choose foods without added fat and sugar. Then you have 265 discretionary calories left. You may use these on “luxury” versions of the foods in each group, such as higher fat meat or sweetened cereal. Or, you can spend them on sweets, sauces, or beverages. Many people overspend their discretionary calorie allowance, choosing more added fats, sugars, and alcohol than their budget allows. http://www.mypyramid.gov/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Feb 7, 2006, 6:52 PM
Post #36 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: but anyway - sugar is simply not part of a balance diet. It's not. YOu don't need it, so it's not BALANCED DIET. That's the point. Hmm, I think we have a different interpretation of what 'balanced diet' means. Anything you don't absolutely need isn't part of a balanced diet? Well, I'm going to disagree. I balance that crap with the good stuff! 8^)
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Feb 7, 2006, 7:05 PM
Post #37 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Let's look at what the author says: A single drop (of Mercury) on your skin can literally kill you. A single drop in a lake poisons the entire lake. Where's Traddad? People who eat non-organic beef are often eating secondhand chicken feces. A bit of an overstatement??? Everyone who watches advertising is persuaded by it, but no one thinks they are. you'd have to be pretty gullible to think TV advertising had ZERO impact. Read, "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn to learn real, uncensored American history. No bias here Monetary inflation, which saps the buying power of your dollars, is intentionally caused by the expansion of the money supply which is, in turn, controlled by the Federal Reserve. Since '92 it's been above 3% twice. the American Medical Association openly admits nearly 100,000 deaths each year due to approved prescription drugs. What's unclear is how many deaths are the result of the drugs failing to do as promissed and how many deaths are actually caused by the drugs. I could go on, but I think you get the picture. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Feb 7, 2006, 7:17 PM
Post #38 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
In reply to: People who eat non-organic beef are often eating secondhand chicken feces. A bit of an overstatement??? Not at all. Just like people who eat organic beef are eating grass. Grass that was presumably grown without chemical fertilizers. That grass was fertilized only with natural, healthy manure. So in effect, you can eat second-hand chicken feces, or third-hand cow feces. Decisions, decisions...
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Feb 7, 2006, 7:18 PM
Post #39 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
79 and 3.03, respectively. *or* "A true free thinker and a person who is well informed about the reality in which you live" and "Within normal limits; an appropriate score for an American."
|
|
|
|
|
yanqui
Feb 7, 2006, 7:52 PM
Post #40 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 1559
|
IMHO the problem with the gullibilty test is that, well, it's too damn fascist. Instead of forcing a true/false dichotomy I would have preferred a range of responses as in the fascism test. Anyways, after checking almost all falses I got fed up and quit. On the fascim test I scored a repeating decimal: 2.733333333333333 .... which makes me a proud, liberal airhead. You better believe it.
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Feb 7, 2006, 8:00 PM
Post #41 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
In reply to: Jumping on the band wagon here...but the food pyramid does include fatty (non nutritional) foods. Why do you think that is? The Food Pyramid was created by the government, which has lobbyists ensuring that what's there is there. http://www.cbsnews.com/...nay/main636355.shtml http://www.newstarget.com/002626.html I am psyched to find out they made the new one - and this one is a lot better than the old one.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Feb 7, 2006, 8:01 PM
Post #42 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: Why do you think that is? The Food Pyramid was created by the government, which has lobbyists ensuring that what's there is there. Conspiracy du jour! And a food conspiracy no less! hahaha
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Feb 7, 2006, 8:03 PM
Post #43 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
You're killing me, Dave. You're a fool if you don't know that lobbyists help control a lot of what becomes gov't policy.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Feb 7, 2006, 8:08 PM
Post #44 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
hahahahaha! Anyone who relies on the government to tell them what to eat gets what's coming to them. :P
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Feb 7, 2006, 8:24 PM
Post #45 of 45
(822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
Stop toying with me. I'm a sensitive lass.
|
|
|
|
|
|