Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
A few slices short of a loaf.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Transdermal Lipolysis

Skinny
  (+5, -1)
(+5, -1)
  [vote for,
against]

As I creep slowly toward early middle age, I am happy to report that I have the body of a Greek god. Less happily, however, that god is Silenus.

There is some speculation that dieting can reduce those annoying extra ounces of bodyfat, but dieting between meals seems ineffective. Equally, excercise is widely touted, but I need hardly say more on that topic.

So.

MaxCo. is pleased to announce that its Transdermal Lipolysis Apparatus is undergoing trials even as we speak.

The TLA looks a little like a large torch, with mains and data cables snaking out of the back end. In its body is an extremely powerful infrared generator, and some other gubbins. The front end is a lens (other lenses are contained within the body).

In operation, the TLA fires a brief burst of intense infrared, which emerges uniformly from the front lens. This lens is, of course, placed against the skin over the offending fat; a transparent gel provides good optical connectivity between the lens and the skin, whether hairy or smooth.

Infrared of the right wavelength (than which we would use no other) can pass quite well through skin and penetrates into subcutaneous tissue. As it passes through the skin, the TLA's light is distributed evenly over about ten square centimetres, and the pulse is not sufficient to cause more than a gentle warming.

However, the cunning lenses of the TLA cause the infrared to be brought to a focus beneath the skin. Because flesh is not very good, optically, this focus is only approximate. Nevertheless, the 10-20% of the light which penetrates that far is brought to a fuzzy focal point within the fat tissue. Depth of penetration is controllable by adjusting the focussing of the TLA's lens. On the more advanced model, an ultrasound transducer is built into the head of the device, so that the local thickness of the fat layer can be judged and focus adjusted accordingly.

One pulse, therefore, is sufficient to heat a fuzzy ball of fat cells to around 50°C for a few moments. This is sufficient to kill them. Since there are few nerve endings in fat, no pain is felt.

Clearly, frying all of your fat cells at once would be very undesirable, releasing large quantities of cellular debris into the circulation. Therefore, it is important to space the treatment out over many sessions, with each session killing off small, dispersed pockets of fat cells. For this reason, the head of the TLA includes an optical mouse- like sensor to track its movements, so that the pulses are triggered at evenly-spaced points. The operator need only slide the TLA back and forth across the skin, until a full matrix of points have been zapped for that session.

The net result, after many sessions, will be the elimination of a large proportion of the fat cells. Although the remaining cells will tend to enlarge as they absorb more fat, this effect does not offset the benefits of eliminating most of them.

MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 25 2012

Go Swimming Instead http://www.krudkutter.com/
This stuff (and some competitor products) is nontoxic and can "defat" the hands. If you use it bare-handed enough, it will pull fat right out of your skin. So, if you go swimming in a vat of the stuff.... [Vernon, Jul 26 2012]

Noninvasive fat removal http://www.kevinmd....lastic-surgery.html
[Loris, Jul 26 2012]

Good and virtuous lumps http://allysaville....w-these-quick-tips/
[doctorremulac3, Jul 29 2012]

Bad and sinful lumps http://en.wikipedia...le:Fat_bastard.jpeg
[doctorremulac3, Jul 29 2012]

rabbit on a skateboard http://www.youtube....watch?v=KFHlkI4wGX0
No more eating rabbit for doctorremulac3 [Loris, Aug 02 2012]

hypocrit - better definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrit
[Loris, Aug 05 2012, last modified Aug 06 2012]

[link]






       //frying all of your fat cells at once// Excellent idea... So it's a type of George Forman grill where you use your own fat cells. [+] It's a winner for me.
xenzag, Jul 25 2012
  

       But the smell of cooking bacon makes me hungry which causes me to eat more.
AusCan531, Jul 25 2012
  

       [+] //Silesus // Sp:Silenus   

       Etymologically related to "Silly Putty."   

       [MB], I share your pain. There is something about middle-aging that allows capital gains to show up in the midsection.   

       p.s. I kept reading TLA as "Three Letter Acronym;" perhaps you could choose a title leading to a less frequently used TLA.
csea, Jul 25 2012
  

       Hmmmm … intense transdermal infrared … hmmm … this idea may have other non- medical applications …   

       So, what levels might be required to cause incapacitation, or lethal injury? We are merely curious, that's all … no ulterior motive …
8th of 7, Jul 25 2012
  

       //Sp:Silenus// Fixed.   

       //other non- medical applications // I'm pretty sure you could do non-invasive vasectomies this way, which would result in a sort of transgenerational incapacitation.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 26 2012
  

       //I have the body of a Greek god// - where do you keep this body? I assume Buchanan Towers has a morgue?
hippo, Jul 26 2012
  

       We do, but they're both full at present. Some guests are so difficult to get rid of.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 26 2012
  

       Won't this just make you all dimply?   

       I'd be a bit concerned about the fat globs being released with this method.   

       Also, 2fries dimple concerns.   

       However, I did a quick google and found the linked page, which refers to 'Zerona'. Which looks like it might be as you describe.   

       Have you considered liposuction? Core all the slop out, make good...
Loris, Jul 26 2012
  

       //dimply//   

       No. The pockets of killed cells are maybe a couple of millimetres in diameter, but quite deep. The optical mouse on the head of the TLA ensures that the pockets killed in any one treatment are evenly spread, and there's enough cell motility to redistribute the remaining cells between treatments, so there should be a fairly even loss of fat cells over the course of several treatments.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 26 2012
  

       //Zerona// Well, I'll be damned. If I'd known this would work I wouldn't have posted it. I foresee a considerable increase in the sales of mid-power 635nm laser diodes.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 26 2012
  

       // I foresee a considerable increase in the sales of mid-power 635nm laser diodes. //   

       We forsee an addition to combat triage training ...
8th of 7, Jul 26 2012
  

       Problem with removing fat with tactical weapons is your body just puts it someplace else. You need to get strategic.   

       Don't eat wheat, rice, sugar or starch, anything that's exclusively post agricultural revolution, specifically super concentrated carbs. We've evolved to eat stuff we can find hunting and foraging, not stuff we grow, so meat and veggies are what we're designed for. Think: "Can I kill this or pick it off a plant and put it in my mouth?" I'll point out to vegetarians that we have fangs to puncture the hides of our prey, the cusped or "canine" teeth. We also have a digestive tract designed to operate on animal or vegetable matter as food. This gave us the evolutionary edge to survive any climate conditions and conquer the planet. It's one reason why cows work for us and not the reverse. If there are those out there that are disgusted at the thought of having ascended from omnivorous hunting and foraging animals that would eat anything that wouldn't eat them first, oh well. Might want to search for self worth someplace other than your dinner plate.   

       Anyway, once you've dumped the carb bomb based diet, find some strenuous activity that you enjoy. We also evolved to go out and kill or gather things to eat so we're designed to move around, but you'll have to find something you like doing or else you won't stick to it. If you've got some kind of mental defect that allows you to enjoy running on a treadmill an hour a day, you're in luck. Otherwise you'll have to find a series of strenuous activities that you actually enjoy.   

       But you're not out of the fat woods yet. As soon as your body gets good at a particular exercise you stop burning calories by doing it. Then the fat loss benefits stop. At that point you'll have to do something else. The good news is, you'll probably be bored with that particular exercise at that point anyway.   

       And don't bother with calorie counting. If cutting out 300 calories a day would result in permanent weight loss it would also result in eventual starvation and death. Your metabolism will simply adjust to the deficit and you'll have less energy. Conversly, if you exercise more you'll need more food so spend more time eating good food and exercising and less time sitting on your butt doing calorie calculations.   

       So eat meat to get your fat and protein and vegetables to get your carbs. Then find fun strenuous physical activities to do on a regular basis and change those activities regularly as well.   

       I've personally had the body shape of both Buddha and Jesus at various times in my life. It's taken a lot of trial and error for me to get trimmed up to where I can go running on California beaches without shirt nor shame.   

       Wow, that's the longest post I've ever written in my life. Just started typing and sort of zoned out. When I woke up, viola! A new record.
doctorremulac3, Jul 29 2012
  

       That sort of business is exactly what I was hoping to avoid.   

       Although it's true that fat will be diverted into other fat cells, there is still a net benefit to removing fat cells. The number of fat cells (and their distribution) is pretty much fixed in childhood. Thereafter, the more fat cells you have, the more your body tends to store fat, and the harder it is to maintain sveltness.   

       If you eliminate most of your fat cells, the remainder will compensate up to a point (by storing more fat and hence getting bigger), but only up to a point.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 29 2012
  

       I'm quite sure that you can carve your body into shape with invasive and semi invasive means and I don't have a problem with that. However if you want to look like mixed-martial-arts-Jesus with a crewcut like I do, my method is probably a better bet.   

       Besides, Max, don't you wan't to be able to "kick ass" if necessary? You never know when you might run into an ass that needs kicking. That's something you can only get by picking heavy things up and putting them down and repeating this process for ever and ever until you die. If the magesty and glory of picking up something heavy doesn't excite you, do it while listening to audio books or podcasts like I do. That'll keep that pesky brain busy so it won't constantly question the value of spending hours picking up pieces of iron. It's like throwing a dog a bone to get it off your leg.   

       Remember kids, whether you're a man or a woman, your worth in this society is based on the size and arrangement of lumps on your body. (see links)
doctorremulac3, Jul 29 2012
  

       I have men who kick arses on my behalf. I do take your point. However, the equation "No pain, no gain" suggests the other equalities "A little pain, a little gain", which pretty much sits squarely in my comfort zone.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 29 2012
  

       Believe me Max, if they had a pill to put the body's lumps in the right place (and I'm sure they eventually will) do you think I'd be working my butt off at the track and the gym? Hell to the no.   

       Easiest way to drop a few pounds is lopping off the bad habbits like soda and a bread based diet if you're not into the exercise thing.   

       There's also a lot to be said for accepting who you are despite your body's particular lump profile.   

       Ok, I've hogged this anno string long enough.
doctorremulac3, Jul 29 2012
  

       Max, my impression is that you don't want to give up eating nice things and don't want to do the unpleasant exercise thing. You would quite like to lie back, relax and have your weight go down by itself.   

       Have you considered giving blood? It must be calorie negative (particularly if you can avoid the bourbons they offer you at the end of the process).   

       No pain, no drain.
Loris, Jul 29 2012
  

       [Loris], you are right, of course, but does that not apply to everyone?   

       Actually, I just want the metabolism I had when I was a mere snip of a lord. Garbage in, Greek God out.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 29 2012
  

       Well, to get back to that more youthful metabolism your choices are exercise, meth or a time machine.   

       If you hear about some other way let me know.
doctorremulac3, Jul 30 2012
  

       //meth// is that -anol, crystal- or a misprint for maths?   

       Oddly, although metabolic middle-age changes are anecdotally very well known, I don't know of any serious investigation thereinto. Someone should at least look at changes in gene expression. You can't really rely on evolution to have done anything right once you turn 40.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 30 2012
  

       Remember, from an evolutionary standpoint as far as the human body's programming is concerned, at 45 you're duty to the tribe is to die and get out of the way. At that point you've already sired ten or so kids, two or three who survived, you're worthless as a hunter, your teeth are all gone and you're a waste of the tribe's resources. The bonus half century beyond that is a product of the agricultural and scientific revolutions and it's a pretty good deal. It's typical human behavior to complain about the details of this deal, such as not looking and feeling like we did in our 20s so eventually we'll get that ironed out as well.   

       We've just started with this science thing. Eventually we'll cure aging and even death. Then we'll have to get busy moving beyond Earth to hold everybody but that's a long way off. We've only recently gotten bored with the digital watch stage of science so there's lots of work to do. In the mean time if you want to look and feel good run around in circles and lift pieces of metal and put them back down over and over again until you feel bad.
doctorremulac3, Jul 30 2012
  

       //from an evolutionary standpoint as far as the human body's programming is concerned, at 45 you're duty to the tribe is to die and get out of the way.//   

       Current thinking is more along the lines that ageing isn't programmed to happen, it's just not programmed not to happen. Any mutations that keep you youthful for longer (even if they don't 'cost' anything) never had the chance to be selected for, because your chances of dying of disease or injury or starvation in any given year were pretty high, until a few thousand years ago, regardless of how youthful you were.   

       To take an analogy, conserving WWII fighter planes is difficult because they weren't well protected against corrosion - there was no point, and rustproofing them wouldn't have helped them survive the war.   

       Sorry, bit of a digression there.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 30 2012
  

       Not a digression at all. WW2 planes were designed to do a particular task and so were we. The aircraft are ill suited to last the coming millennia just like we're not expected to do anything beyond doing our little part to expand the species and then flaming out. We were also designed to cycle through our lives quickly enough to let evolution happen at a pace quick enough to match the changing environments that shape our latest model. If we lived for a ten thousand years nothing would ever get done evolution wise.   

       That's the big difference between us and the planes. (besides the fact that they fly and have 50 caliber machine guns in their wings) Our design has always been and probably always will be in a state of change. At the point that eating, breeding and dying doesn't satisfy the collective aspirations of the species we'll do what we always have. We'll change the world and eventually the universe around us to match our vision of the future.   

       This is all just starting to happen. There are people who were born when there were no motor cars who saw the first man land on the moon. Our great, great, great grandchildren will probably have a choice of planets to live on. Of course I mean like I have the choice between living in Palo Alto or on a private island in the Bahamas but you know what I mean. The possibility for the chosen few will be there.
doctorremulac3, Jul 30 2012
  

       // We'll change the world and eventually the universe around us to match our vision of the future. //   

       Well, the Universe will be changed to fit "a" vision of the future - not necessarily the one espoused by your species ... <snigger>   

       // The possibility for the chosen few will be there. //   

       Indeed they are. Come and join us ...
8th of 7, Jul 30 2012
  

       //the chosen few// If not us, then when? If not here, then who? And if not now, then where?
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 30 2012
  

       Well, speaking of questions like "If not what, why?" etc. I'd say us here and now is our best bet. If we sit around too long we may get complacent while technology increasingly does everything for us.   

       At this point in history we've got just the right blend of technology and barbarian drive to invade and colonize new worlds. We get too civilized we may never leave this dump. It's like living in your mom's basement. If you haven't left by the time you're 35 you may be stuck there forever. I'm thinking we're about 32 and the neighbors (if they're out there) are starting to talk. "Didn't they move out for a little while about 40 years ago? Guess they couldn't make it and moved back home."
doctorremulac3, Jul 30 2012
  

       I'm certainly game for a bit of interplanetary viking. Anybody else?
Alterother, Jul 30 2012
  

       I'm not sure - I've never viked.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 30 2012
  

       Oh, it's easy. Basically you just go someplace you've never gone and have a look at what's there. If there's anyone living there, you say hello and offer to trade peacefully. If they accept, you've made a new friend; if they decline, you rob them of their valuables, burn their dwelling, and (optionally) rape their women. Then you vike somewhere else.
Alterother, Jul 30 2012
  

       I think interplanetary "viking" will be more about staying alive through negative 150 degree nights than raping and pillaging.   

       But life won't be that different than it is here. We'll probably have parks and trees and lakes, they'll just be inside. We'll have to wear clothes before we go outside just like we do now, they'll just be airtight. Other than that we'll do the same things we do now only out there. We'll have sports, art, love, babies and pet goldfish. And from time to time we'll look back at the poor dumb savages on Earth and say "There but for the grace of God go I."
doctorremulac3, Jul 31 2012
  

       Well, personally, I'll forego the raping; never had a taste for it. I think it's more of a relic from a bygone era.   

       Anyhow, the term 'viking', which eventually became synonymous with the Nordic people who engaged in the activity, basically means to go exploring. The pillaging came about as a perfectly acceptable reaction to very rude people who were unwilling to amicably trade with a bunch of huge, hairy men brandishing swords and axes. So once my people take to the stars, the viking shall begin anew. My, we sure admire the exotic items you seem to have in abundance here on this wonderful planet. Look at these lovely things we've brought from Earth. Would you like to barter with us? No? Well, it's your funeral...
Alterother, Jul 31 2012
  

       I doubt we'll find anybody worth killing or exploiting. We'll be looking for planets with water located in the right thermal zones around their stars. The chances of finding both that and pesky blue people flying around on dragons is pretty remote.   

       But that's a long time from now. We've been given two starting points, the moon which is only a week a way but pretty tough to fix up, and Mars which is only a year away but which has everything we need. The nearest habitable zone planet beyond that which may have water is Kepler-22b. At 620 light years away it's about a 6,200 year trip if we get a fusion driven rocket going, basically blowing up nuclear bombs behind a shock plate. We're a long way from forward thinking like that. At this point, with present technology, we'll need some kind of, I don't know, "seed ships" that have everything you need for a human race packed neatly in a can, just add water. Then just send it on it's way and hope you get a postcard in 6,000 years. Pretty tough to get the budget for that through Congress at this point. The other approach I think would just be to have some kind of ark ship that's totally self contained where the society just lives on a space ship for thousands of years. I'd certainly start work on this now. The technology would be applicable to near planet colonization immediately.   

       So first things first. We proved we can get live people on another heavenly body with the moon landings, now let's fire for effect and get that Mars colony going. (or call it New Earth as I've suggested) We're not doing anything useful here on Earth at this point anyway. The job of conquering this planet was accomplished a long time ago and in these cramped quarters we tend to quarrel on a regular basis. Who knows when some idiot's going to push the button and blow us all back to prehistoric times? This drive to expand the species is also the same drive to kill each other. I think we should channel that drive in a positive direction.   

       But fear isn't the main impetus to do this, it's fulfilling our programming. It's what we're here to do. Nature has been throwing various life forms against the wall to see which ones stick for millions of years. Life finally got it right with us. We have what it takes to do what life does: expand and conquer. That's a gift we shouldn't squander and I would argue we have a duty to the entire universe representing as we do the very vanguard of life itself.   

       Wasn't this post originally about zapping fat so you could fit into a bathing suit without working out? Oh yea, almost forgot: [+].
doctorremulac3, Jul 31 2012
  

       // I doubt we'll find anybody worth killing or exploiting. //   

       As I said, that's all optional. The basic idea is just to go see what's there.
Alterother, Jul 31 2012
  

       All for that.
doctorremulac3, Jul 31 2012
  

       I don't Vike very well... but I'd like to Lewis'n'Clark the shit outta it.   

       Somebody give Hutchison free reign and a budget already...   

       Please pardon my ignorance - Hutchison the U.S. Senator from Texas? Hutchison, Kansas Cosmosphere and Space Center?
normzone, Jul 31 2012
  

       Sorry for the assumption. I meant John Hutchison. He plays around with new forms of energy and harmonic resonance to levitate steel or cause objects with different resonant frequencies to sink into solid metal with no increase in temperature.
Very cool stuff.
Search for Hutchison effect if you are interested.
  

       Meanwhile, back at the ranch... ' But the smell of cooking bacon makes me hungry which causes me to eat more'. Exactly (unless you're Muslim or Jewish), it's the one smell hard to resist and I say that as a vegetarian! I wouldn't eat it but something tells me I should and whatever that something is, it would be good to be able to turn it off so the smell has no appeal. Once the first human discovered that the first pig smelled that way when scorched, pig fates were sealed. Other cooking meat smells make me feel queasy so what is the composition of bacon which causes the opposite effect? I've identified salt and smokiness but what else makes it so hard to resist?
Phrontistery, Aug 01 2012
  

       Your body is attracted to those smells because it's programmed to like what's good for it except in the case of sugar and a couple of other things, but there's a reason for that.   

       You've got to remember something about your body. You know the character "Disco Stu" from the Simpsons cartoon? The one who wears bell bottom jeans and platform shoes and is basically lost in the 70s? Well you're body is like that only it's lost in 20,000 BC. It tastes something sweet like candy and it thinks you just picked a piece of fruit off a tree. It's assuming that you're not going to eat the whole tree because you'll get full. It doesn't understand that that's not fruit your eating, it's concentrated sugar and you can eat it all day.   

       So you eat a candy bar your body, (which is stupid) says: "Ug, we get fresh fruit today! We no starve and get eaten by bear this night by Thrall! Be sure and eat your fill for cold time come and we must be fat. Also, fat mean we get big belly attract mate, show we good hunter survive drought long time you big fat stud!"   

       Your body doesn't understand anything new. It assumes anything you give it is the stuff it's evolved to eat over millions of years. You need to know how dumb your body is to manage it. It's a pretty handy revelation to work from.   

       And eat your bacon, it's good for you. Eskimos used to eat fat all day and had very little heart disease. Now they eat a western sugar/grain based diet and have the heart disease that goes along with it. Ignore the old "Food Pyramid" that was a product of the agricultural industry buying off corrupt politicians to tell the people they need to eat 20 loaves of bread a day to be healthy.
doctorremulac3, Aug 01 2012
  

       Discussions like this almost make me forget how much it sucks to be Celiac. I mean, I have a disease that actually forces me to maintain a healthy diet. Gluten-free is all the rage right now because it works. I eat thick ribeye steaks marbled with fat, I fry everything in butter, and bacon occupies at least three tiers of my food pyramid, yet my cholesterol is perfect and I have a body fat ratio of about 6%, all because I can't eat foods that trigger my body's fat- storage mode. Pretty much everything I eat is fresh because most prepackaged foods have gluten-based additives. Once you get around the restrictions, it's a great way to live. I think everyone should try it.
Alterother, Aug 01 2012
  

       Absolutely.   

       And it's very interesting to do a little detective work and find where we got all this "don't eat meat", "eat lots of whole grains" diet nonsense.   

       In the 70s the government said "Hey food industry! No more fat! It's making people fat!" which is sort of like saying eating sugar makes you sweet. So the food industry said "Ok, here's a lot of low fat products with tons of sugar in them." The government said "Great!" and everybody got fatter than ever. Never mind that sugar turns to fat in your body, it does all sorts of crazy stuff to your insulin levels and metabolism that don't help either. In small quantities it's no big deal, but if your diet is based on sugar you're gonna have issues.   

       And whole grains have a bit more nutrition in them than white flour but so does a martini with an olive in it vs one without. That still doesn't make martinis good for you. The grain industry only recently had it's "Government" Food Pyramid unceremoniously taken away and replaced by something with a little more sanity and science behind it.   

       I do understand the anti-meat thing. How do you eat things that are so furry and wonderful? The answer in my case is "medium rare", but like most carnivorous people, I only eat ugly and/or hard to train animals. Nothing that's cute or can be trained to walk backwards on a ball holding a parasol and wearing a little hat.
doctorremulac3, Aug 02 2012
  

       You should try rabbit. It's delicious, and if the cute factor bothers you, all you need to do is visit a rabbit farm and you'll discover what a bunch of single-minded little assholes they are.
Alterother, Aug 02 2012
  

       I've got two rabbits, one small and one giant plus a load of other beaks/gums/fangs to feed. It's not about cute, I just can't bring myself to wipe out creatures with a defined personality when other foodstuffs exist. If I could break what is, to me, that taboo, I could cook and eat a family member without a qualm. You do what you can live with.
Phrontistery, Aug 02 2012
  

       You see, rabbits are cute, but they can't be trained. Our rules against eating any particular animal don't kick in unless both traits are in place.   

       I'm not joking either. I would never eat a dog after seeing it ride a skateboard. Why? Because it rode a skateboard. Put a rabbit on a skateboard and see what you get.   

       But the fact that rabbits are cute, only having the one dinner worthy trait makes them pretty un- popular. There'll never be a "General Smith's Kansas Fried Rabbit" chain of restaurants. Bugs Bunny probably didn't help the rabbit food industry much either.
doctorremulac3, Aug 02 2012
  

       //I'm not joking either. I would never eat a dog after seeing it ride a skateboard. Why? Because it rode a skateboard. Put a rabbit on a skateboard and see what you get. //   

       Link.
Loris, Aug 02 2012
  

       Eh, not bad but I'm gonna need to see a little more showmanship before I take Flopsy off the menu.   

       Picture me sitting in the second row of an empty theater, a knife in one hand an a fork in the other with two assistants holding clipboards on either side of me.   

       "Ok, who's next? Rabbit on a skateboard. Let's see what you got."   

       (Rabbit rolls across the stage as in the video link)   

       "Ok, cut, that's fine, thank you, but we're really looking for somebody with a little more pizzaz to their act who's a little less tasty. Next!"
doctorremulac3, Aug 02 2012
  

       hypocrite.
Loris, Aug 02 2012
  

       Let me guess. Vegetarian?
doctorremulac3, Aug 02 2012
  

       //Let me guess. Vegetarian?//   

       I am - a simple search of this website will tell you as much.
However, that doesn't really have any bearing on your hypocrisy.
  

       Please don't be too offended by my calling you on this, but your goal-post moving exercise here is a beautiful demonstration of the process of rationalisation.   

       In my experience, evangelical carnivores such as yourself also assume that all vegetarians are so for the same reason. This is not the case - there are many non-exclusive reasons.   

       Speaking for myself, I'd rather that someone was a humane omnivore than an inhumane vegetarian (or vegan). I can go into detail on what that means if you want, that's just the gist.
Loris, Aug 02 2012
  

       I'm not too interested in judging people by what they eat myself. As I said, I'm not looking for my sense of self worth on my dinner plate, I'm just looking for dinner. It does seem that vegetarians do seem to enjoy name calling more than omnivores though. I think perhaps that's part of the appeal.   

       As far at the "evangelical" tag, let me know if you see any faulty science in what I say and I'd be happy to update my view if given quality data. I'm here to learn as well as share.   

       And by the way, speaking of learning:   

       Definition of HYPOCRITE 1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings   

       I think I'm pretty clear. If an animal does sucky tricks, they're fair game for the dinner table.   

       I'm also trying to be light and humorous so please don't be offended when I ask: Does vegetarianism make people angry or do angry people just become vegetarians? Helpful hint: If you want to have a discussion with somebody you don't call them names then say "Now that I've insulted you would you like to hear my brilliant view of the world?" The answer will probably be "No thanks."
doctorremulac3, Aug 02 2012
  

       Well I, for one, eat what I eat regardless of whatever judgement others make. Some animals, such as dogs and cats and rhinoceroses, are not for eating. Other animals, such as cows, pigs, lobsters, chickens, and one white- tailed buck per year, are food (and leather, and bones for the dogs, etc.). A few species sit astride that line. Anyone who's seen my profile will note that I have a pet rabbit. Her name is Max. She is an extraordinarily intelligent rabbit who comes when her name is called, does her business in a litter box, and tries very hard to not chew on the furniture when we let her out to play. I would never eat Max.   

       Her brothers and sisters were scrumptious.
Alterother, Aug 02 2012
  

       I'd dearly like to comment on each point but unfortunately don't have time right now. I will restrict myself to just one para with the aim of covering the others later.   

       //Does vegetarianism make people angry or do angry people just become vegetarians?//   

       I don't know - I don't think it changed me or how I have developed. But then I think vegetarians are less angry than average. I suspect that I 'sound' angrier on in forum discussions than I am in person - if you meant me in particular.   

       //Helpful hint: If you want to have a discussion with somebody you don't call them names then say "Now that I've insulted you would you like to hear my brilliant view of the world?"//   

       Sure. Did you realise you were insulting random people (or at least, making inaccurate assumptions) way up the top of the thread?
//I'll point out to vegetarians that we have fangs to puncture the hides of our prey, the cusped or "canine" teeth. We also have a digestive tract designed to operate on animal or vegetable matter as food.//
Why mention vegetarians at all at that point? It's the first mention in the thread.
  

       have to dash. If you explain what you were thinking there I might see it in a light which isn't derogatory.
Loris, Aug 02 2012
  

       Are you asking me to explain the difference between a disagreement and an insult?   

       The above was a disagreement. I'll refrain from giving an example of an insult for comparison.
doctorremulac3, Aug 02 2012
  

       Being vegetarian is a choice like any other choice stemming from the person you are. The sort of fish-eating vegetarian who wears all the T-shirts and goes to PETA rallies might fit the 'angry' label but angry people are everywhere, ranting about the cause of the week. I don't much like people using it as a badge of honour in the same way that I don't like people claiming all kinds of pagan street cred because they use a sweatlodge and have pentagram tattoos. That kind of boasting shows a weakness/neediness badly concealed.   

       The only time vegetarianism normally comes up is at restaurants with people you've just met, because surf and turf menus are a little sparse on suitable dishes. Like I said, eat meat or not, you do what you can live with.
Phrontistery, Aug 02 2012
  

       Sure, absolutely. By the way, my wife was a vegetarian when we first started dating. She never talked about it, it was just a choice she made, not a badge of honor or anything. Anyway, seeing as I married one I don't have anything against vegetarians.   

       I'm just not a big believer in declaring things like diet, sexuality, race or nationality to be a badge of honor. It's ok to be fond of any of those aspects that reflect you, but they don't mean anything.
doctorremulac3, Aug 03 2012
  

       Agreed. It's just grandstanding to big yourself up in front of others but comes across to me as wearing underpants on your head.
Phrontistery, Aug 04 2012
  

       //The above was a disagreement.//   

       You _did_ just randomly pulled out vegetarians as straw men. Here is your comment again:   

       ::I'll point out to vegetarians that we have fangs to puncture the hides of our prey, the cusped or "canine" teeth. We also have a digestive tract designed to operate on animal or vegetable matter as food.::   

       You're assuming that all vegetarians became so due to some sort of misguided belief that people are incapable of digesting meat.   

       You made this completely unprompted, it's not even relevant. So yes, it's (mildly) insulting - whether you realised that or not. You will notice that I didn't comment at the time, and we're only talking about vegetarians now because you disparagingly suggested that I must be one.   

       For what it's worth, being vegetarian was not even a factor in posting the link. You made a rash statement, backed it up with "I'm not joking either." - so I did a 1 minute google search, and posted the top result. You then had several options:   

       1) At least try to change your diet in line with your statement.
2) Somehow state that you wouldn't be able to do (1), and regretted your boast, or
3) Say that you wouldn't eat _that particular_ rabbit. And accept that you could be presumed to eat species you'd previously excluded, if they were ugly or hard to train.
4) try to make out that your conditions wern't met (even though they clearly were).
  

       You know, I don't even like the definition of hypocrisy you posted; see the wiki link I'm posting. According to that, failing to live up to your own ideals isn't hypocrisy. It is the pretending that you have principles which you don't which is hypocritical.
But what I should perhaps have done is put a little winky face after the one-word anno. It's just not the culture here to use smilies.
  

       //let me know if you see any faulty science in what I say ...//   

       Referring to omnivorous hunter-gatherers as a reason to eat more meat is a bit misguided. Most of our ancestors ate significantly less meat than those of us in the developed world now eat.
Sure, the Inuit ate stacks, but if you're not of that descent it's kind of irrelevant.
  

       In that respect at least, meat is just like sugar - protein being something we're evolved to crave more than we need of.
Loris, Aug 05 2012
  

       Took you three days to come up with that? Some advice: Don't become a scientist or a lawyer. You'll starve no matter what your choice of diet.   

       I addressed the fact that many vegetarians insist that we're naturally vegetarian by nature. That isn't something worth freaking out and calling names over. I also addressed the fact that some vegetarians are really cool people to try to be nice but I guess you chose to ignore that.   

       We're omnivores. This is a fact. I made no statement about "eating more meat". I made statements against eating processed sugar and post agricultural revolution grains and pointed out that we're designed to eat meat and vegetables. Again, a fact.   

       Anyway, if you want to disagree it can be done without throwing out insults so lighten up.
doctorremulac3, Aug 05 2012
  

       //Took you three days to come up with that?//   

       Sorry for having other things in my life besides posting to the halfbakery.   

       //Some advice: Don't become a scientist or a lawyer. You'll starve no matter what your choice of diet.//   

       Most amusing.
Loris, Aug 05 2012
  

       Sheesh. All I said was it'd be nice to get thin easily.
MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 05 2012
  

       Yea, but it was the way you said it. (kidding)
doctorremulac3, Aug 05 2012
  

       'Sheesh. All I said was it'd be nice to get thin easily'.   

       Easy - eat all the foods you don't like. The palate is a stubborn opponent but can be re-educated.
Phrontistery, Aug 05 2012
  

       Yea, that's pretty much it.
doctorremulac3, Aug 05 2012
  

       So, if we collided a catholic vegetarian Mac user with a protestant meat-eating Windowser, could we harness the energy, or would the world just collapse into a black hole?
MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 05 2012
  

       Arn't Catholics are obligate piscivores?
Loris, Aug 05 2012
  

       I think their rule book just says "No meat on days beginning with an F"; it also says "beavers are fish".
MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 05 2012
  

       <flicks through Old and New Testaments looking for references to beavers being fish>   

       <Searches Koran, Mahabharata, various pre-Columbian texts, Confucian Analects, Pharonic Book of the Dead, and Good Old Yellow Pages>   

       Hey, [MB], can you cite a source for that ? Other than Armaments, Chapter 2, verses 9-21, obviously ...
8th of 7, Aug 05 2012
  

       I'm pretty sure it's not in the testicles. In the 17th Century, the Catholic church did a Rules Revision, when it was realized that the "fish on Friday" business was inconveniencing some players. Accordingly, beavers were declared fish.   

       I'm not sure where the original fish on Friday rule came from. Presumably Jesus went down the chippy one Friday. It's probably just as well there isn't a huge amount of detailed biographical on His Jesusness, otherwise there'd be lots of other rules such as "On Tuesdays after the shops close, thou shalt go home and take a bath" or "On Wednesdays at mid-morning, thou shalt go for a cappucino, and yay all of the chocolate powder shall be over on one side."
MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 05 2012
  

       // yay //   

       Sp. "Yea"
8th of 7, Aug 05 2012
  

       Depends on how happy you are about cappuccinos.
MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 05 2012
  

       We quite like little monkeys, actually.
8th of 7, Aug 05 2012
  

       Depends on how they're prepared.
doctorremulac3, Aug 06 2012
  

       Just so you're clear on my thoughts on this:   

       //I addressed the fact that many vegetarians insist that we're naturally vegetarian by nature.//   

       I know ...exactly zero vegetarians who would do so. If I did know any, I would argue with them about it.
As someone pointed out above, perhaps a faction of American vegetarians (or perhaps vegans) do so.
It's still an irrelevance to the topic.
  

       //That isn't something worth freaking out and calling names over.//   

       You're right, it isn't. Of course, you're the one with the ad hominem argument.   

       //I also addressed the fact that some vegetarians are really cool people to try to be nice but I guess you chose to ignore that.//   

       I did see that your wife was formerly vegetarian, but had no comment to make on that.   

       //We're omnivores. This is a fact.//   

       With certain qualifications. It's not entirely true though, is it? I mean, you and I eat some animal products, but some people are vegan (no animal products at all) and do okay.
If you said modern humans evolved as omnivores it would be a fact. Whether being vegan is healthier is debatable, but it's not really my concern (and just so you know, I doubt it).
  

       Of course, it is a mistake to think that because something is 'natural' that it must be 'good'.   

       //I made no statement about "eating more meat".//   

       Your implication did however seem pretty clear. If you're _not_ saying that, then why go on about eating meat at such length? Perhaps you were encouraging people to eat all their food raw? If so, you could be clearer.   

       ...   

       The basic problem you've got in this discussion is projecting an erroneous reason on me for calling you out.   

       <redacted>   

       Regarding all your advice, I think this is the best bit (I've removed an unnecessary fragment):   

       //find some strenuous activity that you enjoy. [...] we're designed to move around, but you'll have to find something you like doing or else you won't stick to it. If you've got some kind of mental defect that allows you to enjoy running on a treadmill an hour a day, you're in luck. Otherwise you'll have to find a series of strenuous activities that you actually enjoy.//   

       For myself, I'm not - and have never been - overweight, so I can't give advice from that perspective. However, I find it very strange that people will fill their lives with labour-saving devices and then go to a gym to burn off the calories they saved.
Loris, Aug 06 2012
  

       //You also probably don't realise who you're lecturing. I am confident that Max has a much better understanding of human evolution and nutrition than you. (For the avoidance of doubt, I think I do too.)//   

       Ok, I'll assume you may have paid somebody for a piece of paper that says your really smart with lots of Latin in Germanic type that's suitable for framing. So as an expert on human nutrition and evolution tell me where you're disagreeing with me. Don't tell me about your right to call people names, tell me this great advice about the science of nutrition. And don't try to get Max on your side, either you can defend your position or you can't. Believe me, if Max disagrees, he'll let me know. He's no wallflower.   

       So should we eat lots of grain? Should we eat lots of sugar? Should we not eat meat? Should you be able to call people names? (Ok, skip that last question.)   

       Why not share all this brilliance about diet and evolution that you possess? Maybe we'll all learn something. Seriously, I find the subject interesting so let's see what you've got.
doctorremulac3, Aug 06 2012
  

       You heard the man, combat spatulas raised... tap oven mitts and come out swinging.
doctorremulac3, Aug 06 2012
  

       I don't speak for max. What he does in real life he seems to want to keep separate from here; I should not 'out' him - I shouldn't have said what I did so I'm going to go back and delete that comment. Max, if you're cross with me then I can only apologise.   

       You can actually buy impressive-looking pieces of paper online quite cheaply nowadays.
However, you can rest assured that I am not a dietician and have zero pieces of paper qualifying me to give advice in that regard.
Argument from authority is a mistake. And this site is often an outlet for ideas and things we may not actually believe in. So no - while I don't have the same compunction about keeping things separate, I'm not going to say more than that about myself, either. I assume it would be fairly easy for an interested party to figure out from prior postings on this site.
  

       //So should we eat lots of grain? Should we eat lots of sugar? Should we not eat meat?   

       Eat whatever the fuck you like. But don't boast about your principles, welsh on them when provided with new information and then bitch incessantly about the consequences.   

       //Should you be able to call people names?//   

       Yes. You fatty.   

       //(Ok, skip that last question.)//   

       uh, sorry. I'll let you have a free hit.   

       //Why not share all this brilliance about diet and evolution that you possess?//   

       Could you do me a favour and read the idea and comments again - carefully, from the start? Not right now, but come back later. I'll do the same and we can talk some more.
Loris, Aug 06 2012
  

       //Yes. You fatty.//   

       I'm not fat, as I've pointed out, and anybody who would call somebody a "fatty", even if they are fat is an asshole. There are many wonderful people who are overweight and plenty of skinny jerks.   

       //we can talk some more.//   

       Uhh, no thanks.
doctorremulac3, Aug 06 2012
  

       //I'm not fat, as I've pointed out, and anybody who would call somebody a "fatty", even if they are fat is an asshole. There are many wonderful people who are overweight and plenty of skinny jerks.//   

       That was intended as a joke - I thought I'd signposted that enough. I mean - really blatently, in the context of the thread where you'd stated that you are not fat.   

       I suspect it's my sense of humour which is pissing you off quite so much; I guess we don't have enough shared culture for you to catch them (and perhaps vice-versa). Because to be fair, it seems to me that you've been snidely insulting to me thoughout this thread. I concede that I did call you a hypocrit. But then, it was true.
Loris, Aug 06 2012
  

       //I guess we don't have enough shared culture//   

       Let's keep it that way.
doctorremulac3, Aug 06 2012
  

       Good lord.   

       Well, I have had various pieces of paper, but I have no idea where they are now.   

       I consider myself an expert... but not on human nutrition. Soviet wristwatches, now there's an area I could help with. Or possibly anything to do with DNA.   

       But, finding myself in the position of being me, and for clarification, nobody has annoyed me.   

       <Pauses to pop on a white coat; brushes off biscuit crumbs; steps toward whiteboard.>   

       Ahem. Is this on? Hear me at the back?   

       It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that humans are designed to eat whatever they can get. They seem to be able to manage on mostly meat, or on mostly plants. Nowadays we have the choice, and some people like mostly meat, and some people like mostly plants. Some people like only meat, and die; some people like only plants, and generally seem to survive. Lots of people like some plants and some meat. I like peanut butter a lot. Actually, that might underpin the root of the nub of the essence of my problem.   

       I think that sums up most of the last century or so of anthropology and dietesiology, more or less.   

       Meanwhile, at least one good thing has come out of all this. This, and a couple of other topics here on the HB, are providing the basis for chapters 3 and 4 of my friend's D.Phil thesis on "Interpersonal Conflict in Virtual Environments". So one day you'll all be internationally famous in the Experimental Psych. department in Oxford.
MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 06 2012
  

       Will I have to wear a diaper and have electodes hooked up to my head during the experiments?   

       (Standard joke response: "Only if it makes you feel better.")
doctorremulac3, Aug 06 2012
  

       // Accordingly, beavers were declared fish. //   

       Reports are sketchy, but I believe the declaration legitimized muskrats, rather than beavers, for consumption during Catholic feasts in northern climates, where fish are rather hard to come by in the winter, or alternatively during the Great Depression, when fish was hard to come by year-round. Various sources cite Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, andor Belgium as the locations of this strange and disturbing practice of gastrological retaxonomification.
Alterother, Aug 06 2012
  

       According to Wikipedia: "In the 17th century, based on a question raised by the Bishop of Quebec, the Roman Catholic Church ruled that the beaver was a fish".
MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 06 2012
  

       There's a dirty joke in there someplace.
doctorremulac3, Aug 06 2012
  

       Yeah, but I'm not going there.
MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 06 2012
  

       And why am I wearing this white coat?
MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 06 2012
  

       Okay, so it's beavers and muskrats. Probably some other easily-snared semi-aquatic mammals as well. In fact, why restrict it to mammalia? Let's allow antipodal Catholics to dine upon the humble platypus during Lent!
Alterother, Aug 06 2012
  

       Wait a minute, what do you mean martinis aren't good for you?
normzone, Aug 06 2012
  

       Well, depends on your definition of "good for you" I guess. Properly administered they can probably be great for you.
doctorremulac3, Aug 06 2012
  

       Thank-you Max. I am relieved.   

       What's the difference between a beaver and a water otter?   

       One is a kettle and the other one's a whole other kettle of fish.   

       What about hippos?
Loris, Aug 07 2012
  

       //What about hippos?//   

       I'm pretty sure that hippos don't eat beaver, not even on a Friday.
MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 07 2012
  

       ...which sounds like the punch line to a dirty joke.
doctorremulac3, Aug 07 2012
  

       It was. But you'd have to be as drunk as I was (and preferably sitting in the same bedouin tent) to appreciate it fully.
MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 07 2012
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle