And will anything you do or don't do on this quest affect the game world in any persistant way?
Actually, in WoW, you do affect the world in persistant ways sometimes. How? By instancing.
Play a human cleric, and one of your newbie missions will be to find a wounded knight and heal him. Do so, and he returns home. There is no longer a wounded knight resting against that tree for you.
When some other cleric gets that quest, there will be a wounded knight there waiting for him, but there will never again be one there for you to deal with.
It's not quite the same thing as being able to chop down a tree and have the whole game world see that you did it, but that kind of permeranent change would require almost as many devs and players.
Re:Obesity comes from a simple condition...
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 1
but it could certainly be that you have an unusually high metabolism, and that your friends appear, by comparison, like they're obese-in-spite-of-doing-everything-right.
Or... it just might be that rather than my metabolism being spectacular (trust me, it is not), it could be that theirs is working against them. It might even be due to a viral cause, for all we know, which was kind of the whole point of TFA.
For all these people saying "you can only get fat if you consume more than you burn": Pretty much everybody consumes more than they burn... It just that some people jettison some of those calories as waste, while other people store more of them as fat. There are a lot of reasons why your body might think "hey... I'm going to need this later... It think I'll tuck it over here," and those reasons are not always obvious.
I would argue that we're being too politically correct, and not addressing obesity as the problem that it is. The reason that saying (more reasonably) "you must take personal responsibility for your weight," has been ineffective is not because the words have no effect, but because too few people are saying it, to the point that anyone who does say it can be labled as judgemental and intolerant of others.
Yes. That's the problem fat people have. Not enough people telling them to stop eating so much. *rolls eyes*
People love to give advice to other people for dealing with problems, and fat people have a problem which is incredibly visibly obvious. Most of them are told by *somebody* to eat less and work out more many times in a single week, every week, all their lives. They are also told the same thing by their doctor at every single physical. Furthermore, they are reminded of their problem every time they are shot down by a potential dating partner and every time they run out of breath going up a flight of stairs.
So being one of the few (by which, I mean one of the many) who nags them to put down the sandwitch and go for a walk is not in any way helpful. They've heard it. They never stop hearing it. You are offering no new information.
Please show me where I made any of the arguments you attribute to me.
You are not the only person on this forum. Stop trying to take credit for their arguments.
You implied (no stated) that it wasn't possible.
I said no such thing.
What I did say was that it has not proven helpful to play the Nancy Reagan card ("Just Say No") no matter how often your repeat it.
What I also said was that, while it may be relatively simple for some people to modify their behavoir in such a way to overcome any misfortunate quirks of genetics, environemnt, or (as suggested in this study) disease, it's not equally feasible for all people, and for some people... Hey, maybe it is impossible. You don't know, and without research like this you have no way of knowing, other than extrapolating your own (completely different) set of experiences and applying it to them.
In spite of how much the results of studies like this might displease the "personal responsibility uber alles" crowd, I'm glad studies like this are being done. If there really does turn out to be a viral cause, discovery of it is cause for celebration.
Why?
Because science is about getting to the truth, not propping up your motivational self-help ranting.
Quitting cold turkey is just as effective as any other method, so even though you tried, your attempt at a witty analogy fails.
You completely missed my point.
Telling people to "stop eating and exercise more" appears to be reducing obesity about as well as telling junkies to quit cold turkey reduces heroin use. In other words, almost not at all.
I'm with the other poster who suggested that all of you shouting "it's fatso's fault that he's fat" without considering the evidence are just as bad as the ID people who refuse to even consider the evidence.
TFA is about a study which says there might be a viral pathology which is contributing to obesity, if not outright causing it in some cases. Since this shakes up the world-view of some of you, you're stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum over it.
Sorry if this new science is showing that you might not automatically be better people that those who are fatter than you, but I'm going to side with the guys in the lab-coats on this debate.
Is it so difficult for you to understand that the same mechanism that makes their eating behavior maladapted can also make their coping mechanisms maladapted?
Is it so difficult for you to understnad that the "mechanism" in question might have a pathology which should be addressed by means other than belittling the patient? Perhaps even a viral one?
Whatever...it's individual and statements such as "Something is clearly wrong with these people" piss me off.
Relax. You said yourself that you are healthy and happy with your current weight, so you are clearly not in the group of which I was speaking (those who are dangerously obese in spite of a continuing and ongoing struggle not to be.)
It comes down to one thing will power if someone wants to do something they can. Eating disorders are going down the same wrong path as drug users. By calling it a disease it equates to cancer you can't make life changes and get rid of cancer, you have to undergo surgery or chemotherapy.
Are you at all willing to entertain the possibility that what you call a lack of will power is, in fact a pathology?
It might give you comfort to assume that these people are simply less spectacular than you, but for all you know, were you living inside their skin, you would be even worse of than they are. Perhaps your mighty "will power" is really just a function of you being lucky enough not to experience their overpowering food cravings. Perhaps it is worthwhile to get to the bottom of why these people can't simply push themselves away from the table as easilly as you. There just might be more to it than a lack of moral fiber. Open your mind a little.
Re:Conservation of energy revoked?
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
We HAVE solutions. They just aren't quick or pleasant. The solution to gross obesity is to radically alter your lifestyle PERMANENTLY.
Yes, and the solution to kick heroin is to stop shooting up, but even if you TYPE IT IN ALL CAPS, a junkie is still going to need more help then you shouting at them.
Re:Obesity comes from a simple condition...
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 1
So I conclude it's a matter of personal responsibility.
Translation: "It was slightly challenging, yet realistically attainable for me to get in shape, therefore it must be for everybody, and I'm simply better than those who failed."
Re:Obesity comes from a simple condition...
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I doubt this a great deal. How many people who work out extensively and eat healthy are obese? I suspect very few.
I could introduce you to three from within my own personal circle of close friends. They work out as much as me (if not more) eat healtheir than me (and less of it) and are fatter than me... and I'm no ice-cream eating couch potato myself.
I'd address the rest of your post, but seeing as I just invalidated your whole point, I don't think I'll bother.
Re:Conservation of energy revoked?
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
What they will conveniently forget is convervation of energy: The only way someone can gain weight is by eating too much, compared to how much energy their bodies spend on moving and keeping you alive. End of discussion. [snip] If a disease lowers the energy requirements of the body, the cure is to eat proportionally less.
For some people "too much" food might be just enough to nourish them. It's not widely reported, but lots of dieting fat people die and/or suffer severe health problems from malnutrition every year. Still fat, yet starved of required nutrients.
We've tried bullying fat people to "quit eating so much and go for a walk" for decades now. Results have not been stellar. Maybe we ought to try something else. Maybe it might be worth a shot to afford them the dignity of any other human beings, and find ways to help them get thinner.
It's not like fat people want to be fat. You can't even make the case that the pleasures of eating and relaxation (or avoiding the discomfort of working out and going hungry) are more important to them than their health and appearance. There are people who are suicidal over their weight, and willing to endure painful, dangerous, ill-advised medical procedures to correct it.
Something is clearly wrong with these people, whether it's psychological or physiological. Instead of mockingly call them out for being less wonderful than you (when, for all you know, you would fair far worse if cursed with their metabolism), how about we try to find a solution.
In spite of how much the results of studies like this might displease the "personal responsibility uber alles" crowd, I'm glad studies like this are being done. If there really does turn out to be a viral cause, discovery of it is cause for celebration.
Science before dogma.
Re:Obesity comes from a simple condition...
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
...it's called "intaking more calories than you output."
Different people output different amounts of energy. Some people burn hundreds of calories just sitting in front of the TV, because they are jittery. Others can work out every day and still just barely keep up with the caloric intake of a healthy diet.
If staying in shape comes relatively easy for you, I find it quite repugnant to ascribe the failure of less-lucky folk to stay skinny to some moral shortcoming.
And I'm saying this as somebody who runs 3-4 miles a day and drastically limits his sugar intake. For me, staying healthy is a part-time career that occupies a good chunk of my day. As hard as it is for me, I know for a fact that there are a lot of overweight people who could not possibly live my lifestyle. For one thing, their knees would cruble in a matter of weeks. For another, their various food cravings are a lot stronger than mine.
Maybe some of them can pull it off, but there are addictive drugs out there which have a better rate of recovery than obesity. Shouldn't we all consider that there may be more treatment required than shouting "stop being so lazy, fatty" at them?
Just keep your body parts on, you losers! Look at me, I manage to get through the day without letting boils form on my skin or limbs rotting off. You just need more motivation.
do you think an environment with explosive tree and other plant growth (the kind you're recommending to correct the situation) leaves room for humans?
Oh noes! If we grow too many plants, we'll be crowded off the face of the planet like a bad Star Trek episode!!!1!
Clue: If the carbon came from burning oil, that carbon was once part of the biosphere to begin with. The environment can handle the load just fine. The only case where it's that big of a problem is crowded cities with little or no wind (LA) where CO and CO2 can gather in too great of a concentration to be healthy.
Animals also emit CO2. How about if we just kill another deer for every car that gets built? Then we won't need to plant as many trees, and there will also be less need for woodsy deer habitats. Win-win!
And when the deserts expand in the US (Arizona/New Mexico/California comes to mind), and the Columbia and Colorado river starts to run dry...
You might not have noticed, wandering around in young areas of reforestation, but the Colorado river is not "running dry."
It's blocked up by hydroelectric dams. One of those fantastic alternative power sources (which also happens to completely fuck up the local ecology.)
How are you going to produce food and live in those areas again? Oh that's right.. Humans will thrive and survive that.
Good news for Canadian farmers, eh?
California was NEVER a good place for growing our food. We ravaged the countryside to irrigate a place that was mostly desert when we got there. To hear somebody whine about man's impact on the environment huring the California farm industry would be hilariously funny if it wasn't so tragically sad.
Try less than a thousand years. Less than a thousand years ago, there was a period where historical evidence points to an Earth that was much warmer than today. Also within the same time span, periods which were a lot colder.
Problem with that theory is that we're cutting down a lot of forest and paving over everything.
First of all, we are cutting down a lot of forest, but we are also growing a lot. In the US there are currently more trees than there were at the start of the Industrial Revolution. Conservation, reforestation, and paper mill tree farms have made that the case.
Deserts are expanding. Exactly how do deserts and asphalt balance out greenhouse gases?
Did the deserts not expand last time the Earth warmed up? Yet we not only failed to utterly die off, we actually thrived. Sucks if you live in Tunisia, but then it pretty much always sucks to live in Tunisia.
News flash: The earth has been a lot warmer than it is now, even within the span of human history, and the biosphere survived.
There were once booming farm communities in Greenland. The last several hundred years or so have been colder than what is ideal, so an overall warming trend of a few degrees is actually terrific news. Most of the Earth's land mass is outside the tropical zone, after all.
Every owner of an actual greenhouse knows that raising CO2 levels artificailly will encourage plant growth, and since plants are CO2 consumers, they have a balancing influence on CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The system is quite robust and has survived far more dramatic impacts than what a few million SUV's could ever cause.
It's no kind of weird sick transsexual thing for me and I'm sure most other players. I just don't want to sit there and stare at a guy's ass for hours on end.
Right. You are walking around for hours at a time in a virtual world, presenting yourself as a woman before everybody you meet in that world, and dressing your little cartoon proxy in feminine clothes while you are at it, because to not do so would mean you're gay. Gotcha.
Keep telling yourself that if you must.
P.S. Transexuals and gays are not "sick" (although maybe a little "weird"). Denial, on the other hand, is a tad unhealthy.
Slashdot Mirror
And will anything you do or don't do on this quest affect the game world in any persistant way?
Actually, in WoW, you do affect the world in persistant ways sometimes. How? By instancing.
Play a human cleric, and one of your newbie missions will be to find a wounded knight and heal him. Do so, and he returns home. There is no longer a wounded knight resting against that tree for you.
When some other cleric gets that quest, there will be a wounded knight there waiting for him, but there will never again be one there for you to deal with.
It's not quite the same thing as being able to chop down a tree and have the whole game world see that you did it, but that kind of permeranent change would require almost as many devs and players.
but it could certainly be that you have an unusually high metabolism, and that your friends appear, by comparison, like they're obese-in-spite-of-doing-everything-right.
Or... it just might be that rather than my metabolism being spectacular (trust me, it is not), it could be that theirs is working against them. It might even be due to a viral cause, for all we know, which was kind of the whole point of TFA.
For all these people saying "you can only get fat if you consume more than you burn": Pretty much everybody consumes more than they burn... It just that some people jettison some of those calories as waste, while other people store more of them as fat. There are a lot of reasons why your body might think "hey... I'm going to need this later... It think I'll tuck it over here," and those reasons are not always obvious.
I would argue that we're being too politically correct, and not addressing obesity as the problem that it is. The reason that saying (more reasonably) "you must take personal responsibility for your weight," has been ineffective is not because the words have no effect, but because too few people are saying it, to the point that anyone who does say it can be labled as judgemental and intolerant of others.
Yes. That's the problem fat people have. Not enough people telling them to stop eating so much. *rolls eyes*
People love to give advice to other people for dealing with problems, and fat people have a problem which is incredibly visibly obvious. Most of them are told by *somebody* to eat less and work out more many times in a single week, every week, all their lives. They are also told the same thing by their doctor at every single physical. Furthermore, they are reminded of their problem every time they are shot down by a potential dating partner and every time they run out of breath going up a flight of stairs.
So being one of the few (by which, I mean one of the many) who nags them to put down the sandwitch and go for a walk is not in any way helpful. They've heard it. They never stop hearing it. You are offering no new information.
Please show me where I made any of the arguments you attribute to me.
You are not the only person on this forum. Stop trying to take credit for their arguments.
You implied (no stated) that it wasn't possible.
I said no such thing.
What I did say was that it has not proven helpful to play the Nancy Reagan card ("Just Say No") no matter how often your repeat it.
What I also said was that, while it may be relatively simple for some people to modify their behavoir in such a way to overcome any misfortunate quirks of genetics, environemnt, or (as suggested in this study) disease, it's not equally feasible for all people, and for some people... Hey, maybe it is impossible. You don't know, and without research like this you have no way of knowing, other than extrapolating your own (completely different) set of experiences and applying it to them.
Why?
Because science is about getting to the truth, not propping up your motivational self-help ranting.
Quitting cold turkey is just as effective as any other method, so even though you tried, your attempt at a witty analogy fails.
You completely missed my point.
Telling people to "stop eating and exercise more" appears to be reducing obesity about as well as telling junkies to quit cold turkey reduces heroin use. In other words, almost not at all.
I'm with the other poster who suggested that all of you shouting "it's fatso's fault that he's fat" without considering the evidence are just as bad as the ID people who refuse to even consider the evidence.
TFA is about a study which says there might be a viral pathology which is contributing to obesity, if not outright causing it in some cases. Since this shakes up the world-view of some of you, you're stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum over it.
Sorry if this new science is showing that you might not automatically be better people that those who are fatter than you, but I'm going to side with the guys in the lab-coats on this debate.
Is it so difficult for you to understand that the same mechanism that makes their eating behavior maladapted can also make their coping mechanisms maladapted?
Is it so difficult for you to understnad that the "mechanism" in question might have a pathology which should be addressed by means other than belittling the patient? Perhaps even a viral one?
So I suppose we should stop all medical research into any of your problems as well, then. Okies.
Your response would have been funny, if it did not so perfectly reflect of the reality of our culture. Well said.
Whatever...it's individual and statements such as "Something is clearly wrong with these people" piss me off.
Relax. You said yourself that you are healthy and happy with your current weight, so you are clearly not in the group of which I was speaking (those who are dangerously obese in spite of a continuing and ongoing struggle not to be.)
It comes down to one thing will power if someone wants to do something they can. Eating disorders are going down the same wrong path as drug users. By calling it a disease it equates to cancer you can't make life changes and get rid of cancer, you have to undergo surgery or chemotherapy.
Are you at all willing to entertain the possibility that what you call a lack of will power is, in fact a pathology?
It might give you comfort to assume that these people are simply less spectacular than you, but for all you know, were you living inside their skin, you would be even worse of than they are. Perhaps your mighty "will power" is really just a function of you being lucky enough not to experience their overpowering food cravings. Perhaps it is worthwhile to get to the bottom of why these people can't simply push themselves away from the table as easilly as you. There just might be more to it than a lack of moral fiber. Open your mind a little.
We HAVE solutions. They just aren't quick or pleasant. The solution to gross obesity is to radically alter your lifestyle PERMANENTLY.
Yes, and the solution to kick heroin is to stop shooting up, but even if you TYPE IT IN ALL CAPS, a junkie is still going to need more help then you shouting at them.
So I conclude it's a matter of personal responsibility.
Translation: "It was slightly challenging, yet realistically attainable for me to get in shape, therefore it must be for everybody, and I'm simply better than those who failed."
I doubt this a great deal. How many people who work out extensively and eat healthy are obese? I suspect very few.
I could introduce you to three from within my own personal circle of close friends. They work out as much as me (if not more) eat healtheir than me (and less of it) and are fatter than me... and I'm no ice-cream eating couch potato myself.
I'd address the rest of your post, but seeing as I just invalidated your whole point, I don't think I'll bother.
What they will conveniently forget is convervation of energy: The only way someone can gain weight is by eating too much, compared to how much energy their bodies spend on moving and keeping you alive. End of discussion.
[snip]
If a disease lowers the energy requirements of the body, the cure is to eat proportionally less.
For some people "too much" food might be just enough to nourish them. It's not widely reported, but lots of dieting fat people die and/or suffer severe health problems from malnutrition every year. Still fat, yet starved of required nutrients.
We've tried bullying fat people to "quit eating so much and go for a walk" for decades now. Results have not been stellar. Maybe we ought to try something else. Maybe it might be worth a shot to afford them the dignity of any other human beings, and find ways to help them get thinner.
It's not like fat people want to be fat. You can't even make the case that the pleasures of eating and relaxation (or avoiding the discomfort of working out and going hungry) are more important to them than their health and appearance. There are people who are suicidal over their weight, and willing to endure painful, dangerous, ill-advised medical procedures to correct it.
Something is clearly wrong with these people, whether it's psychological or physiological. Instead of mockingly call them out for being less wonderful than you (when, for all you know, you would fair far worse if cursed with their metabolism), how about we try to find a solution.
In spite of how much the results of studies like this might displease the "personal responsibility uber alles" crowd, I'm glad studies like this are being done. If there really does turn out to be a viral cause, discovery of it is cause for celebration.
Science before dogma.
Different people output different amounts of energy. Some people burn hundreds of calories just sitting in front of the TV, because they are jittery. Others can work out every day and still just barely keep up with the caloric intake of a healthy diet.
If staying in shape comes relatively easy for you, I find it quite repugnant to ascribe the failure of less-lucky folk to stay skinny to some moral shortcoming.
And I'm saying this as somebody who runs 3-4 miles a day and drastically limits his sugar intake. For me, staying healthy is a part-time career that occupies a good chunk of my day. As hard as it is for me, I know for a fact that there are a lot of overweight people who could not possibly live my lifestyle. For one thing, their knees would cruble in a matter of weeks. For another, their various food cravings are a lot stronger than mine.
Maybe some of them can pull it off, but there are addictive drugs out there which have a better rate of recovery than obesity. Shouldn't we all consider that there may be more treatment required than shouting "stop being so lazy, fatty" at them?
Yeah, just like those damn lepers.
Just keep your body parts on, you losers! Look at me, I manage to get through the day without letting boils form on my skin or limbs rotting off. You just need more motivation.
Sarcasm aside
NEVER!
do you think an environment with explosive tree and other plant growth (the kind you're recommending to correct the situation) leaves room for humans?
Oh noes! If we grow too many plants, we'll be crowded off the face of the planet like a bad Star Trek episode!!!1!
Clue: If the carbon came from burning oil, that carbon was once part of the biosphere to begin with. The environment can handle the load just fine. The only case where it's that big of a problem is crowded cities with little or no wind (LA) where CO and CO2 can gather in too great of a concentration to be healthy.
Animals also emit CO2. How about if we just kill another deer for every car that gets built? Then we won't need to plant as many trees, and there will also be less need for woodsy deer habitats. Win-win!
Pfft! "Sarcasm aside"! What a hoot!
And when the deserts expand in the US (Arizona/New Mexico/California comes to mind), and the Columbia and Colorado river starts to run dry...
You might not have noticed, wandering around in young areas of reforestation, but the Colorado river is not "running dry."
It's blocked up by hydroelectric dams. One of those fantastic alternative power sources (which also happens to completely fuck up the local ecology.)
How are you going to produce food and live in those areas again? Oh that's right.. Humans will thrive and survive that.
Good news for Canadian farmers, eh?
California was NEVER a good place for growing our food. We ravaged the countryside to irrigate a place that was mostly desert when we got there. To hear somebody whine about man's impact on the environment huring the California farm industry would be hilariously funny if it wasn't so tragically sad.
Hmm... High CO2 levels. That sounds... bad. Right? That's bad?
If only we could invent some kind of machine which could extract CO2 from the air. Install lots and lots of such machines, and the problem goes away.
Oh yeah, I just remembered, there is such a device. Best of all, it required minimal maintenance.
It's called a "tree."
We're talking a long time ago, in human terms.
Try less than a thousand years. Less than a thousand years ago, there was a period where historical evidence points to an Earth that was much warmer than today. Also within the same time span, periods which were a lot colder.
Problem with that theory is that we're cutting down a lot of forest and paving over everything.
First of all, we are cutting down a lot of forest, but we are also growing a lot. In the US there are currently more trees than there were at the start of the Industrial Revolution. Conservation, reforestation, and paper mill tree farms have made that the case.
Deserts are expanding. Exactly how do deserts and asphalt balance out greenhouse gases?
Did the deserts not expand last time the Earth warmed up? Yet we not only failed to utterly die off, we actually thrived. Sucks if you live in Tunisia, but then it pretty much always sucks to live in Tunisia.
News flash: The earth has been a lot warmer than it is now, even within the span of human history, and the biosphere survived.
There were once booming farm communities in Greenland. The last several hundred years or so have been colder than what is ideal, so an overall warming trend of a few degrees is actually terrific news. Most of the Earth's land mass is outside the tropical zone, after all.
Every owner of an actual greenhouse knows that raising CO2 levels artificailly will encourage plant growth, and since plants are CO2 consumers, they have a balancing influence on CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The system is quite robust and has survived far more dramatic impacts than what a few million SUV's could ever cause.
Apart from which, any major extinction due to human effects is natural selection.
There. Fixed it for you.
It's no kind of weird sick transsexual thing for me and I'm sure most other players. I just don't want to sit there and stare at a guy's ass for hours on end.
Right. You are walking around for hours at a time in a virtual world, presenting yourself as a woman before everybody you meet in that world, and dressing your little cartoon proxy in feminine clothes while you are at it, because to not do so would mean you're gay. Gotcha.
Keep telling yourself that if you must.
P.S. Transexuals and gays are not "sick" (although maybe a little "weird"). Denial, on the other hand, is a tad unhealthy.