Perhaps part of the problem is that it’s not 100% clear what Taubes’ position is. It’s arguably in his financial interest to leave his position ambiguous. There is huge marketing value in giving people permission to pig out; at the same time it’s easier to defend his position if he doesn’t approve of pigging out.
His position seems plenty clear to me as far as anyone’s position is clear: Obesity isn’t about pigging out, it’s about consuming refined carbohydrates.
His position seems plenty clear to me as far as anyone’s position is clear: Obesity isn’t about pigging out, it’s about consuming refined carbohydrates.
(I’ve gotta say, the word “about” has always peeved me whenever people claim that “X is about Y.” Ever since I was in college and I heard feminists asserting that “rape is about power not about sex.” )
But anyway, you seem to be saying that, according to Taubes, if you simply avoid eating refined carbohydrates, you can eat other foods ad libitum and avoid obesity. Is that pretty much it?
Also, could you define the phrase “refined carbohydrates” for me?
But anyway, you seem to be saying that, according to Taubes, if you simply avoid eating refined carbohydrates, you can eat other foods ad libitum and avoid obesity. Is that pretty much it?
Yes.
Also, could you define the phrase “refined carbohydrates” for me?
No. There are adequate definitions that are easily googleable. And precisely how I might disagree with those definitions isn’t important since you and I aren’t going to have an extended conversation about this. If you’re curious you can read the discussion I’ll have with Chris.
No. There are adequate definitions that are easily googleable.
If that’s the case, then it’s odd you wouldn’t simply take a few seconds to Google, cut, paste, and link your definition. Your choice seems to support my hypothesis that Taubes’ position is unclear.
And precisely how I might disagree with those definitions isn’t important since you and I aren’t going to have an extended conversation about this.
If you choose not to back up your claim that Taubes’ position is “plenty clear,” I will choose to draw my own conclusions. Your choice and my choice.
If you choose not to back up your claim that Taubes’ position is “plenty clear,” I will choose to draw my own conclusions. Your choice and my choice.
I have however-many years of reading your comments here and your barely-positive karma ratio to remind me that you will be drawing your own conclusions completely independently of someone else being able to back up their claims.
I have however-many years of reading your comments here and your barely-positive karma ratio
In the time it took you to compose this thinly-veiled ad homenim attack, you could have easily Googled, cut, pasted, and linked this definition which is supposedly so easy to find.
But instead, you prefer to change the subject from the definition of “refined carbohydrate” to my merit as a poster.
An ad homenim is an attempt to tarnish a person’s position by criticizing the person. I’m not doing that at all and if anyone else is unable to a definition by googling they can ask me and I’ll point that in the right direction. I brought up my opinion on you as a poster to explain to you why I’m not going to debate the subject with you.
But by all means, take my response as a concession. You’re victorious and have successfully show Gary Taubes position to be unclear.
I have on many occasions, including this one, googled “refined carbohydrate” and I am not convinced that I have found anyone who means anything by it, let alone that a significant number of people mean the same thing by it.
Added: no, a lot of people do mean something: they mean “carbohydrate.”
An ad homenim is an attempt to tarnish a person’s position by criticizing the person.
Well you have certainly criticized me. Although you claim that it was done simply to “to explain to you why I’m not going to debate the subject with you,” you said nothing about that in your earlier post. Here’s what you said:
I have however-many years of reading your comments here and your barely-positive karma ratio to remind me that you will be drawing your own conclusions completely independently of someone else being able to back up their claims.
Besides your nasty tone, there was nothing in there about it being an explanation for why you did not want to have a discussion with me.
But by all means, take my response as a concession
I will—it’s pretty obvious why you keep trying to shift the exchange away from your earlier claim about the clarity of Taubes’ position.
By the way, it’s fascinating that you perceive a simple request for a definition as “debate.” I haven’t yet disputed that you have accurately summarized Taubes’ position.
Although you claim that it was done simply to “to explain to you why I’m not going to debate the subject with you,” you said nothing about that in your earlier post.
Back one more post:
And precisely how I might disagree with those definitions isn’t important since you and I aren’t going to have an extended conversation about this. If you’re curious you can read the discussion I’ll have with Chris.
I was trying to be polite...
I will—it’s pretty obvious why you keep trying to shift the exchange away from your earlier claim about the clarity of Taubes’ position.
If literally anyone else thinks this they are welcome to say so and I will talk with them about it. Done now.
If that’s true, I would hate to see you trying to be unpleasant. You could have easily said—right from the beginning—“based on your previous posts I prefer not to engage with you.” But instead you were nasty, rude, and by some strange coincidence, engaged in an “appeal to Google” when I put your position under a little scrutiny. And it was only then that you decided that you did not want to discuss substance with me.
Anyway, I am repeating my earlier request:
Please give me your definition of “refined carbohydrates” so that I can understand your view about Taubes’ position.
But anyway, you seem to be saying that, according to Taubes, if you simply avoid eating refined carbohydrates, you can eat other foods ad libitum and avoid obesity. Is that pretty much it?
Perhaps part of the problem is that it’s not 100% clear what Taubes’ position is. It’s arguably in his financial interest to leave his position ambiguous. There is huge marketing value in giving people permission to pig out; at the same time it’s easier to defend his position if he doesn’t approve of pigging out.
His position seems plenty clear to me as far as anyone’s position is clear: Obesity isn’t about pigging out, it’s about consuming refined carbohydrates.
(I’ve gotta say, the word “about” has always peeved me whenever people claim that “X is about Y.” Ever since I was in college and I heard feminists asserting that “rape is about power not about sex.” )
But anyway, you seem to be saying that, according to Taubes, if you simply avoid eating refined carbohydrates, you can eat other foods ad libitum and avoid obesity. Is that pretty much it?
Also, could you define the phrase “refined carbohydrates” for me?
Yes.
No. There are adequate definitions that are easily googleable. And precisely how I might disagree with those definitions isn’t important since you and I aren’t going to have an extended conversation about this. If you’re curious you can read the discussion I’ll have with Chris.
If that’s the case, then it’s odd you wouldn’t simply take a few seconds to Google, cut, paste, and link your definition. Your choice seems to support my hypothesis that Taubes’ position is unclear.
If you choose not to back up your claim that Taubes’ position is “plenty clear,” I will choose to draw my own conclusions. Your choice and my choice.
I have however-many years of reading your comments here and your barely-positive karma ratio to remind me that you will be drawing your own conclusions completely independently of someone else being able to back up their claims.
In the time it took you to compose this thinly-veiled ad homenim attack, you could have easily Googled, cut, pasted, and linked this definition which is supposedly so easy to find.
But instead, you prefer to change the subject from the definition of “refined carbohydrate” to my merit as a poster.
An ad homenim is an attempt to tarnish a person’s position by criticizing the person. I’m not doing that at all and if anyone else is unable to a definition by googling they can ask me and I’ll point that in the right direction. I brought up my opinion on you as a poster to explain to you why I’m not going to debate the subject with you.
But by all means, take my response as a concession. You’re victorious and have successfully show Gary Taubes position to be unclear.
I have on many occasions, including this one, googled “refined carbohydrate” and I am not convinced that I have found anyone who means anything by it, let alone that a significant number of people mean the same thing by it.
Added: no, a lot of people do mean something: they mean “carbohydrate.”
I just googled it. I suspect that the “refined” in “refined carbohydrates” is a stand-in for “bad, for reasons left unspecified.”
Refined means that somebody has done something to it. Like for example purified it or changed it to something sweeter that get digested faster.
Well you have certainly criticized me. Although you claim that it was done simply to “to explain to you why I’m not going to debate the subject with you,” you said nothing about that in your earlier post. Here’s what you said:
Besides your nasty tone, there was nothing in there about it being an explanation for why you did not want to have a discussion with me.
I will—it’s pretty obvious why you keep trying to shift the exchange away from your earlier claim about the clarity of Taubes’ position.
By the way, it’s fascinating that you perceive a simple request for a definition as “debate.” I haven’t yet disputed that you have accurately summarized Taubes’ position.
Back one more post:
I was trying to be polite...
If literally anyone else thinks this they are welcome to say so and I will talk with them about it. Done now.
If that’s true, I would hate to see you trying to be unpleasant. You could have easily said—right from the beginning—“based on your previous posts I prefer not to engage with you.” But instead you were nasty, rude, and by some strange coincidence, engaged in an “appeal to Google” when I put your position under a little scrutiny. And it was only then that you decided that you did not want to discuss substance with me.
Anyway, I am repeating my earlier request:
Please give me your definition of “refined carbohydrates” so that I can understand your view about Taubes’ position.
TIA.
This is just a bookmark post, no need to respond.