Slashdot Mirror

Obesity does have strong correlations to health problem, but your insensitive stereotypes are rude and unfounded. Making such demeaning caricatures out of heavier individuals is simply not helping the issues. Yes, many people would reap many health benefits from losing weight, but almost as many underweight people would reap similar benefits from gaining weight.

It is always important to remember that the #1 health risk to the obese is not heart problems or diabetes, it is misdiagnosis. So many people and even doctor assume that if you're heavy, all your health problems are caused by that, and so they often miss obvious symptoms of other real, life threatening conditions. It is also important to remember that an unstable weight correlates to health problems even more strongly than obesity. Many heavier individuals are pressured by peers and doctors to lose weight, and they often attempt to do so with unhealthy means, such as various eating disorders. This often leads to fluctuating weight and other problems. If you have to choose between fluctuating weight and obesity, obesity is statistically much safer.

Not to beat a dead horse, but another thing to keep in mind is that correlation is not causation. Many instances in the statistics of obesity can be shown to involve the correlation of "I am sick, and it is making me heavy". When these cases are weeded out, the correlations become much weaker, and it becomes even more obvious that the underweight or inactive are at just as much risk as the obese.

In conclusion, you can decide, if you wish, that obesity is not a responsible way to live. I would accuse you of insensitivity but nothing more. But ridiculing and stereotyping the obese as moronic imbeciles that are out of control and grossly irresponsible is crossing the line. I wouldn't call you quite as bad as a racist, but you would be quickly approaching it. The fact of the matter is that very few of the people who are obese would live up to any of those demeaning stereotypes, and probably just as many (per capita) "normal" individuals would live up to them if you simply looked. But you aren't looking, because you are singling out the obese and deciding to throw your vile at them, when they simply don't deserve it anymore than anyone else.

So the "religion" is named as it is to troll members of a different religion that they don't believe in any way.

I don't think trolling counts as a "religion".

I'm glad we have someone like you around to clear up exactly what everyone else gets to claim as a religion.

Quite correct. And to be more correct, she probably got into that "religion" because it offended Mom and Dad who didn't understand her any way. She was raised kind-of-Christian and when she went through her rebel phase she started hanging out with the group who claimed to be following the most famous rebel bad-boy that she had heard of. Even though their "religion" is whatever they saw in the movies or on this really cool TV show where the cute witch-girl was wearing this really awesome black lace outfit and ...

Yeah, you get the idea.

Wow, not only do you get to be the Religion Police, you even get to paint caricatures of those who hold beliefs that don't meet with your strict "True Religion" criteria!

Fair enough that there are no good guys but if we're going to count every feud back to the dawn of civilization then most of the world would be at war. For example, France and Germany did not just one but two world wars last century, and yet now they're both EU members with open borders, common currency and whatnot. At some point you need to leave the past behind you and accept that it happened, but that you don't need to get even anymore. Particularly if that "getting even" is dealing twice as much as you got, then it'll never end. Somebody have to be less bad than the one before them, then maybe hopefully over time things can heal. Yet every time there's a period of relative peace and stability, someone is ready to deal new, fresh scars...

Personally I decided not long after both Israel accused Norway of being anti-semitic because of some writings and the Arab countries accused us of being anti-muslim because of the Muhammad caricatures. They're both anti-freedom of speech and anti-freedom of press. As far as I am concerned, I wouldn't mind at all if the entire Middle East disappeared off the face of the earth. Or at least got their head out of the dark ages.

Now go read the linked article before you try to be too smart by half.

Is there any reason this article is different to the other zillion strawmen and caricatures put forth by right wingers ?

Starship Troopers the movie is an *intentional caricature of the book* with the inteded message perverted into its opposite. The book is actually "pro-fascism" if you will.

I agree on LotR, though I love the poetry; especially the Lay of Leithian (the long one in the history of middle earth).

30 Rock came out around the same time as Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, which was a far more creative show, and which got cancelled after about two seasons. I like Tina Fey, but the writing wasn't as good and I found Alec Baldwin's character to be an uninteresting caricature.

24 was creative enough that it taught a generation of Army interrogators how to get information out of prisoners, and I've never forgiven Kiefer Sutherland for it, in spite of it being a well-paced and interesting show. (Also, it's very strange to have The President keep showing up on car insurance commercials...)

Actually, yes, the post is offensive because it promulgates a stereotype of homosexuality - that it is all about being feminine and obsessing about interior design, or that liking musicals is a sign of being gay. I don't care about the app. If someone isn't comfortable with their sexuality and wants to try and shift it around a bit, that's their business. But re-enforcing stereotypes and caricatures of homosexuality affects actual homosexuals.

Ahh, that's just the mad cow talking....

I really enjoyed that show - Shatner was playing a serious character, and also playing a caricature of Shatner, and was doing just fine at both.

If you're going to quote Romans at least put it in context. Paul says that the wages of sin is death. In other words, no one who has sinned can ever be worthy of a perfectly just god. That's the entire reason for sacrificial atonement in the old testament. That's the entire reason Jesus was sent to earth to die, so that the law of the old testament could be fulfilled once and for all. Paul is listing out sins in those verses. Let me list a few others: lying, sloth, lust, anger. God doesn't see any of these as any worse than another. Each and every one carries a sentence of death. But Jesus was crucified as the perfect sacrifice. Perfect in life, he is the only one who doesn't deserve to die for his sins. Since he was killed as a sacrifice for us, we can be forgiven for our sins and are no longer sentenced to death. This is hardly a call to kill people who sin.

There are some other verses you should consider (oddly enough, also from Romans) "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord." Romans 12:19, NIV

If you want to bash Christianity, it's your right, but you should at least learn what mainstream Christian's believe (hint: the majority of /.ers seem to have a very poor caricature of Christianity in their heads, and seldom if ever actually know what Christians are saying or doing)

The death and ressurrection of Jesus is a pretty important facet of the Christian faith. I think you'll need more than a few passages from one book to argue your point, especially when so many other explanations for Jesus having to die on the cross have been debated well. Are you dismissing the "original sin" as relevant to the topic? What about the fact that humans all, even after Jesus died as a sacrifice, still die (a post-Adam/Eve phenomenom, which could easily have been changed back by God after the death of Christ). What about any number of other suggestions backed by picking out statements made by other biblical figures in other books?

It's interesting that you simply prove the GP's point about having a very poor caricature of Christianity when basing your refutation of what he says on said caricature.

When discussing "Death" or "Hell" in the Christian sense one needs to understand that this stands not for non-(or un-)existence, but rather "existence separate from God". So yes, it is easy to see that any person who does something wrong deserves to be separated from God, that is, Death.

Why did God make the law that way in the first place then, if he was going to change it later? God changed his mind? Isn't God supposed to be all-knowing? A truly omnipotent God would never change his mind.

He never did change his mind. A sinner still deserves death. However, being a loving God he can choose to give Life as a gift. (And again here, Life not as 'existence' but rather as 'existence with God'. God can choose to be with a person who doesn't deserve it)

One last thing, when discussing things like 'before' and 'after' or God 'suddenly [anything]' one must realize that any God that is omnipotent and omniscient stands outside of time. Anyone who insists on discussing God as being within time misunderstands the natures of both God(if he exists) and the Universe. Reading 'A Brief History of Time' by Stephen Hawking is particularly enlightening on the nature of the Universe and of time. Reading 'Mere Christianity' by C.S. Lewis is very useful on understanding what Christians believe. If you're going to have any success in discussing anything with anyone, it is very important to understand their world view, even if you think it all nonsense.

If you want to bash Christianity, it's your right, but you should at least learn what mainstream Christian's believe

Define "mainstream Christians"
I think you'll find that the mainstream of American Christians are barely/non-practicing, but feel free to show otherwise.
Next week's assignment: compare and contrast mainstream christians vs mainstream christian doctrine.

(hint: the majority of /.ers seem to have a very poor caricature of Christianity in their heads, and seldom if ever actually know what Christians are saying or doing)

hint: the majority of Christians seem to have a very poor caricature of Christianity in their heads.

If you're going to quote Romans at least put it in context. Paul says that the wages of sin is death. In other words, no one who has sinned can ever be worthy of a perfectly just god. That's the entire reason for sacrificial atonement in the old testament. That's the entire reason Jesus was sent to earth to die, so that the law of the old testament could be fulfilled once and for all. Paul is listing out sins in those verses. Let me list a few others: lying, sloth, lust, anger. God doesn't see any of these as any worse than another. Each and every one carries a sentence of death. But Jesus was crucified as the perfect sacrifice. Perfect in life, he is the only one who doesn't deserve to die for his sins. Since he was killed as a sacrifice for us, we can be forgiven for our sins and are no longer sentenced to death. This is hardly a call to kill people who sin.

There are some other verses you should consider (oddly enough, also from Romans) "Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord." Romans 12:19, NIV

If you want to bash Christianity, it's your right, but you should at least learn what mainstream Christian's believe (hint: the majority of /.ers seem to have a very poor caricature of Christianity in their heads, and seldom if ever actually know what Christians are saying or doing)

I find it hard to understand why people bash Stallman and his views on software. I get the impression they have never even tried to understand where he is coming from and simply dismiss him because he looks and sounds a certain way. He is caricatured as a loony preaching foreign concepts and people don't try to get past that.

I used to be an open-source advocate until I learned about rms and the FSF. I read a collection of his essays* and never looked back - my life has changed. Whenever I see people spout flawed arguments such as "Programmers will starve!" or "Nobody will write software!" I can't help but look upon them in a negative light.

I ask all of you, be open-minded and digest the arguments.

*http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fsfs/rms-essays.pdf

I'm not sure why we as geeks continue to portray the any-geek-girl-will-do caricature.

It is a stereotype being pushed onto us by the non-geek and it simply tends to stick to those geeks who are either easily affected or who have low self-esteem. Sad as it is. But it still is a stereotype that has no basis in reality.

PS. Sounds like you have an absolutely fantastic group of people around you and your husband doesn't sound bad either, I am somewhat envious of you :)

I second this! I'm not sure why we as geeks continue to portray the any-geek-girl-will-do caricature. My husband and I have been married for years. We aren't cardboard cut outs: he doesn't have the patience to read a good science fiction novel and I gave up on programming a long time ago. We do, however, play games together, work for different parts of our local science fiction convention, etc. We went to Gencon for our honeymoon. My sister and bro-in-law play in a D&D group two days a week, watch anime, etc but split on video games and reading fanfiction. Both couples are happily married, and together we are raising my niece who at age 4 can name dice properly, has a video of her rolling her first natural 20, and knows which covenant are the most difficult to kill in Halo. (That last bit is from my father, actually!) Sure, our deprived guys didn't grow up watching Blake's 7 or Dr Who, and we don't play video games as 24-7 as they would prefer, but that's the difference between real people and stereotypes. The other difference is that they, like most geekish fellas, won't jump at anything that moves and knows what open source or otaku means.

How does it feel to be a caricature?

Unfortunatly no judge will agree to this until some of the FSM followers blow them self up to prove they are serious about their believes. When it come to respecting rights, fear is what make them work. Just look how everyone backed off on the "muhammad caricature" events. Fredom of speech get crushed because of some violent douche bag. This is how the world work.

Lighten up. It's a caricature used for comic effect. It's funny precisely because the stereotype is not (or no longer) true for most of us.

I remember when I was about 9 one of my mates drew some caricatures of the teachers in a notebook and passed them around. The teacher noticed us all giggling at it and demanded to see the notebook.

I remember one teacher taking a look at one of those notebooks, telling me it wasn't okay but that he liked the quality of it, then as "punishment" tasked me to do a collage of what was taught in class that day. Great way to defuse the situation and I haven't done such things since.
On topic though; there's a difference between a notebook used in school, during schooltime, for school purposes and private information "gathered" outside of school on a personal mobile phone.

No one who knows anything about electronics manufacturing thinks this. The $499 16GB iPad, by all estimations, costs under $250 to manufacture.

No one who knows anything about products thinks this. The tear-down component price estimations are deliberately lowballed, and it costs a lot more than just the sum of the components to take those components and combine them into boxed and shelved iPad, ready for purchase.

Android is going to change that by doing the same thing it did in the smartphone market. Expect to see 10" Android tablets for $300 or less by the end of the year.

Not going to happen, except possibly for some humorously bulky, crappy-screened, and overall completely inadequate caricatures of a proper tablet.

You Android folks were saying this was going to happen by Summer of 2010, then it was Fall 2010, then it became "sometime in 2011" (skipping over the Winter, which was clearly lost by the time Fall came around). If you think there will be iPad-quality Android tablets for under $300, you are going to be quite disappointed when 2012 rolls around. It's not even a sure thing that there will be proper Android tablets for the same price as an iPad by then, let alone $200 cheaper.