On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 16:34:28 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:

> Here, they tend to advocate a low-fat, carb-heavy diet.

Who the hell ... !? No way any health professional would recommend such a
thing. Most of the body fat buildup comes from consuming, not fat, but
carbs.

Jim Jackson wrote:
> On 2024-12-09, Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>> Jim Jackson wrote:
>>> On 2024-12-09, Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>> Jim Jackson wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-12-05, Oregonian Haruspex <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 06:13:45 -0000 (UTC), Oregonian Haruspex wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [proof of my point about misinformation]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Sigh*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ..... And since the experts have been caught lying so frequently, so
>>>>>> boldly, their loss in credibility is my gain.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh boy. Care to quantify ".. so frequently". Some experts have lied does
>>>>> not equate with experts lying frequently. And which experts are you
>>>>> talking about, the expert doctors that have given us unprecedented good
>>>>> health and long lives
>>>>
>>>> ROTFLMAO! Have you checked the obesity rate lately? LOL!
>>>
>>> Yes, concerning. But despite that, life expectancy is still way way way
>>> above what it was 100 years ago. Another example of not seeing the wood
>>> for the trees.
>>>
>>
>> Listening to the so-called "experts" is WHY obesity and comorbidities
>> has increased.
>
> Most health practioners advise a diet and lifestyle that aims to prevent
> obesity - at least in my world. In yours things may be different.
>

They recommend low animal fat (if any), low cholesterol and high carbohydrate
diets loaded with seed oils. If you want to die of obesity and type-2 diabetes,
listen to those clowns.

Oregonian Haruspex <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>You seem very offended. This huffy faux emotional reaction is just what I’d
>expect from somebody from your shit outfit. Ukraine lost. Democrats lost.
>Nannies lost. You lost.

I don't get this. I am seeing an increasing number of people, and most of
them are on the right but a shocking number of them are on the left, who seem
to view everything in the world as a zero sum game. "The other guy lost,
therefore I have won." "I won, therefore the other guy lost." The thing
is, life isn't like that.

In most cases there isn't even any winning or losing to be done at all, and
viewing everything as a competition is often not the right lens in the first
place.

I am especially saddened to see this happening on the right, which for years
upheld Ronald Reagan whose great philosophy was that a rising tide raised
all boats. But Reagan's philosophy seems to have been thrown away.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article <vj7veq$2c4ks$1@news.mixmin.net>, Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>
>Listening to the so-called "experts" is WHY obesity and comorbidities
>has increased.

Depends which experts. If you have been listening to fast-food experts and
expert pastry chefs, this could explain things.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Oregonian Haruspex <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> You seem very offended. This huffy faux emotional reaction is just what I???d
>> expect from somebody from your shit outfit. Ukraine lost. Democrats lost.
>> Nannies lost. You lost.
>
> I don't get this. I am seeing an increasing number of people, and most of
> them are on the right but a shocking number of them are on the left, who seem
> to view everything in the world as a zero sum game. "The other guy lost,
> therefore I have won." "I won, therefore the other guy lost." The thing
> is, life isn't like that.
>
> In most cases there isn't even any winning or losing to be done at all, and
> viewing everything as a competition is often not the right lens in the first
> place.
>
> I am especially saddened to see this happening on the right, which for years
> upheld Ronald Reagan whose great philosophy was that a rising tide raised
> all boats. But Reagan's philosophy seems to have been thrown away.
> --scott

This is very sad. We should come together in love and compassion working
towards a common goal. Instead we get identity politics trying to divide
and conquer by constantly creating new false dichotomies and
in-groups/out-groups in order to create destruction. =(

On 12/2/24 4:37 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Report on a study
> <https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/12/people-will-share-misinformation-that-sparks-moral-outrage/>
> into why people are more likely to pass on false reports and rumours
> rather than factual ones.
>
> Of course, given how politically-charged the issue of what is “lies”
> and “truth” can be, they chose to base the credibility (or not) of
> news sources, not on their own judgement, but on a more objective
> measure, of how often reports from those sources were fact-checked as
> false.
>
> What they found was that, often, the people spreading the false
> stories knew they were false, but passed them on anyway, on the basis
> of the degree of moral outrage they provoked. In other words, they
> wanted to push people’s buttons. (I suppose this is the definition of
> “populism”.)
>
> And some politicians doing this are not shy about admitting as much:
>
> Brady pointed to an example from the recent campaign, when a
> reporter pushed J.D. Vance about false claims regarding immigrants
> eating pets. “When the reporter pushed him, he implied that yes,
> it was fabrication, but it was outrageous and spoke to the issues
> his constituents were mad about,” Brady says. These experiments
> show that this kind of dishonesty is not exclusive to politicians
> running for office—people do this on social media all the time.
>
> Wasn’t it Mark Twain who said that “a lie can spread halfway around
> the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”?
I wonder if, given recent research on the effectiveness of
counternarratives on extremist positions, we might apply this more
generally to misinformation?

For example, William Allchorn, a scholar on extremist social movements,
found that "[counternarrative] messages of unity that foster a sense of
common human values, togetherness, and kindness worked best. In
particular, it was learnt that content with a rousing, emotive, or
'feel-good' factor was preferred over more cerebral content. Moreover,
if key points of content were introduced, they needed to be
straightforward and present factual content that was watertight. It was
found that narratives that attacked the far right, singled out or
reified a single ethnicity, and were too 'political' failed to engage
the audience—and led to negative reactions" (see
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781803925738.00022)

Allchorn is talking about messages that successfully/unsuccessfully dial
back hostile positions towards certain groups, which certainly overlaps
with the type of misinformation Brady references. Might it be the case,
then, that a good way to counter the misinformation's effect may be to
not address it directly, but rather offer simple and straightforward
counternarratives?

Curious to hear thoughts.

-World Knight

On 2024-12-14, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <vj7veq$2c4ks$1@news.mixmin.net>, Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>
>>Listening to the so-called "experts" is WHY obesity and comorbidities
>>has increased.
>
> Depends which experts. If you have been listening to fast-food experts and
> expert pastry chefs, this could explain things.

His ramblings are so obtuse, I'm often not sure what he is getting at or
where he is coming from. I don't expect he does.