If it's proven there's no god

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Going back to your earlier claim that wilfully engagung in a practice known to be unhealthy is morally reprehensible. Were you morally reprehensible when you ate yourself into obesity?

I have demonstrated why your use of such analogies is logically fallacious because although they may appear to be deductively valid it does not mean that they actually are valid. If an analogy is so far removed in nature and extent then its a false comparison and essentially fallacious. Too bad fo yo!

Originally posted by FMF
The all time high was four years ago? You didn't mention that. It's also about diagnosis and not infection. An increase in diagnoses ~ if it means more of the cases of infection out there are being detected rather than missed ~ is to be welcomed.

What about the figures I provided you with?

I did not need to mention that, you can enter criteria into any search engine and find it out for yourself. I only mentioned the UK, it also seems to be the case in Ireland as well. Refraining from putting your willy where nature never intended it to go would be a much better solution.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
no its not enough. have you read it? it contains a mountain of factual errors, statistical errors, its very poorly referenced (probably presuming most people reading it will not check). much of it is non scientific, just personal opinion guess work. its not a peer reviewed study, its a hatchet job of misrepresented, out dated and often straight out lie ...[text shortened]... ouldnt put links to that kinda crap.


now, which sexual acts are [b]YOU referring too?[/b]

Sorry yours is an opinion piece, if you care to state why his findings are in error them please do so otherwise spare me your amateur dramatics. Well here is your chance to review it Spalding.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have demonstrated why your use of such analogies is logically fallacious because although they may appear to be deductively valid it does not mean that they actually are valid. If an analogy is so far removed in nature and extent then its a false comparison and essentially fallacious. Too bad fo yo!

Were you 'morally reprehensible' when you ate yourself into obesity?

It's a straight question which requires only a straight answer.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Sorry yours is an opinion piece, if you care to state why his findings are in error them please do so otherwise spare me your amateur dramatics. Well here is your chance to review it Spalding.

id be more than happy to point out some of the mistakes (it would take far to long to cover the entire document). how many examples of errors would you like?

before i do so, i presume you have read and support all the claims made in the document. if you do not, would you like to state which points you are aware are errors or disagree with. this would save me covering parts you are already aware are wrong. if there are non, then i will presume you agree with the entire document.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Were you 'morally reprehensible' when you ate yourself into obesity?

It's a straight question which requires only a straight answer.

Again this is a false assumption, It assumes that people are obese because they eat too much. The fact of the matter is people may be obese because they do not eat the right kinds of foods. Sigh you must be used to failing by now Noobster?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
id be more than happy to point out some of the mistakes (it would take far to long to cover the entire document). how many examples of errors would you like?

before i do so, i presume you have read and support all the claims made in the document. if you do not, would you like to state which points you are aware are errors or disagree with. this woul ...[text shortened]... ready aware are wrong. if there are non, then i will presume you agree with the entire document.

Its your opinion piece, you substantiate it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its your opinion piece, you substantiate it.

i just want to clarify first if you have actually read it, if you agree with its claims?


edit: i know you havent fully read it and i know you dont give a **** if its accurate...as long as it supports your twisted view.

http://homoresponse.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/response-to-j-diggs-health-risks-of-gay.html

and here is a full rebuttal of every error in the document (there are a lot)...you wont read it, you dont actually care.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i just want to clarify first if you have actually read it, if you agree with its claims?


edit: i know you havent fully read it and i know you dont give a **** if its accurate...as long as it supports your twisted view.

http://homoresponse.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/response-to-j-diggs-health-risks-of-gay.html

and here is a full rebuttal of every error in the document (there are a lot)...you wont read it, you dont actually care.

I have read the bits that were pertinent to my argument. Now why are you are falling to pieces. Its not a twisted perspective if its based on science, is it? even a namby pamby shandy drinking ballet dancing secular liberal like you should be able to assimilate such a fact. I don't need an alleged rebuttal, I have evaluated it with my own mind and it makes perfect sense. Yes some of the data for some of the claims might have been taken from incomplete sources but one cannot get away from the physiology of the human body. Now stop whimpering and pull yourself together.

Now let us see, are you saying that the anus is a fit orifice for sexual intercourse? on what scientific basis are you saying that its a fit orifice for sexual intercourse. For either you produce evidence or you will admit that the physiology of the human body makes it unfit for such a purpose and as a consequence sodomy is an unnatural act. I can provide evidence which demonstrates that its unfit, can you provide evidence to demonstrate your assertions? Now we shall see who has read it and who cares, wont we.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Again this is a false assumption, It assumes that people are obese because they eat too much. The fact of the matter is people may be obese because they do not eat the right kinds of foods. Sigh you must be used to failing by now Noobster?

Obesity is a matter of 'calories in vs calories out' for 99.99% of the population. No matter which way you look at it, obesity is an unhealthy state of affairs.

Now, were you 'morally reprehensible' when you ate yourself into obesity?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Again this is a false assumption, It assumes that people are obese because they eat too much. The fact of the matter is people may be obese because they do not eat the right kinds of foods. Sigh you must be used to failing by now Noobster?

What 'right foods' haven't you been eating that you believe led you to being obese?

Is not eating the right food a more important factor to obesity than eating the 'wrong food?'

(Genuine questions).

As an aside, jogging on the spot is an amazing calorie burner. If you jog in place for 15 minutes, you will end up burning around 144 calories and a spot jogging session lasting 30 minutes can help you burn 281 calories. - Perhaps this is something you can do on peoples doorsteps when doing your missionary work?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Obesity is a matter of 'calories in vs calories out' for 99.99% of the population. No matter which way you look at it, obesity is an unhealthy state of affairs.

Now, were you 'morally reprehensible' when you ate yourself into obesity?

No one has said its unhealthy what I am disputing is your assumption that its due to overeating. Are you seriously telling us that its due to overeating and there are no other factors?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
What 'right foods' haven't you been eating that you believe led you to being obese?

Is not eating the right food a more important factor to obesity than eating the 'wrong food?'

(Genuine questions).

As an aside, jogging on the spot is an amazing calorie burner. If you jog in place for 15 minutes, you will end up burning around 144 calories ...[text shortened]... es. - Perhaps this is something you can do on peoples doorsteps when doing your missionary work?

None my being overweight was due to lack of exercise which I have since redeemed by going to gym regularly, infcat almost every morning that I am physically able. My dispute with Noobster is that its due to overeating. Once again he has produced what looks like a deductively valid argument but its logically fallacious because there are many other factors which he has failed to take into consideration.

Sir I burn on average anything between one thousand and two thousand calories per gym session, roughly working out for about an hour on the cross trainer, treadmill, bicycle both standing and reclining. 281 calories is peanuts. Never the less I thank you for your continued interest in my health, we will however be taking no lessons on how to conduct a public ministry from novices, I hope you understand 😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
281 calories is peanuts...

I believe there are only 11 calories in a peanut.


In my current area, we having a jogging postman. (Not sure if this is health motivated or if he just wants to complete his round quicker). If a jogging postman, why not a jogging Jehovah Witness?

"Let us run with endurance the race God has set before us."

-Hebrews 12:1

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No one has said its unhealthy what I am disputing is your assumption that its due to overeating. Are you seriously telling us that its due to overeating and there are no other factors?

How else is someone going become obese if not through overeating? (Granted there are very, very few people who due to medical reasons are obese. But I'm discussing the other 99.99% of obese people)