She also appears to be ignorant of what the word "Ignorant" means:
That would be "intolerant" perhaps, but not "ignorant".

Of course, I don't recall anyone here doing that. I do think people have and should attack incorrect statements of fact, if by "attack" you mean point out what is wrong with that statement.

I do have a little sympathy for this person, she came on, made some mistakes, said a couple of things she can't find the strength to correct, and now is all mad at everyone. As strongly gifted in the art of polemic as I am, I could easily fallen have into the same trap.

Her challenge, and ours, is to now be able to look past that if she has a real problem that she needs support with. Of course, since her opinion so strongly disagrees with the facts, I don't know if our advice will ever be of much help.

Long ago and far away, this thread was about grandparents feeding the children sugar/sweets. . . .

Which ended up in a debate about whether there is anything really wrong with sugar/sweets. . . .

Which ended up in a debate about whether people just get fat 'cause they eat too much, vs. whether family plying children with sugar/sweets contributes enough to matter. . . .

I'm thinking maybe now we should argue about the definition of "family" or something.

Not pick a nit, Baer, but I think he is a she, and might like to be acknowledged as such.

Yeah, I just changed that

I don't look at those little marks too much. And of course the masculine pronoun is the proper usage for the unknown gender.

At the very least he is a better pronoun to use than "it" when there's a question of gender. It could be seen as a real insult.

My 8 year old stepdaughter called our new baby "it".

I'm pretty sure she meant it as an insult.

[QUOTE]His challenge, and ours, is to now be able to look past that if he has a real problem that he needs support with. Of course, since his opinion so strongly disagrees with the facts, I don't know if our advice will ever be of much help.

My only argument with this is that people often put all their eggs in a basket held up by a scientific study that generated a scientific theory, that fit their own personal ideas. Meanwhile down the road there's a new scientific study that completely disproves that theory. Your obviously very committed, and well researched but is it possible that there's a large grey area? That it's not all black & white? And there's certainly a lot of room for human error. What I'm saying is you're armed with a lot of facts and could be wrong while the person with just an opinion is totally or partially right. Or stepping way into the grey and their opinion it totally or partially right for them or someone else?

Reminds me of a night in a crowded bar when I was sitting on a stool and a very nice looking man walked by. I was wedged in on both sides and being jostled so as the gentleman walked by I grabbed my ankle on the leg that was crossed so I didn't accidentally kick him if I got jostled. He looked at the ankle, looked questioningly at me, and I explained that I wouldn't want to kick him accidentally. He asked if I would like to kick him intentionally. I said "Not yet but give it time." We dated for 4 years.

LOL! What a way to meet!

Disarming with humor really ticks off the people who want to argue.

Again, this is the difference between a "study" and an experiment. Studies can be wrong, but an experiment demonstrates a fact.

If you push down on one end of a lever, the other end goes up. No way to argue with that. No study will refute it. Studies may show that some people don't believe in leverage, or that levers are not as important to the rats as they are to the chimps. But levers like the one demonstrated, will always act like the demonstration showed.

The things I am talking about have been fairly well demonstrated with experiments. There is some room for further experimentation and I could have misremembered parts of the experiments, but the experiments show what they show, and not anything else.

As for what I believe, before I saw the results of the experiment, I thought that low carb caused you to eat less by inhibiting the appetite. I didn't have any experiments to show this, but it seemed to make sense. I was wrong. The experiments I saw contradicted what I believed and demonstrated something else to be the fact.

But when I talked about it before I used qualifiers, like "it seems" to suppress the appetite, "it probably" reduces the amount of calories you eat. That's what you do when you don't know something by experimentation.

There may be some people who eat out of 'whim' rather than body-driven. So far science hasn't found them since the studies show people force-fed promptly lose the weight afterward. But who knows, it could happen. Maybe that poster is someone who actually did that (and now assumes everyone else has the same reasoning and history). Ya never know.

Ok. But here's another angle. I work in the swimming pool business and there are great scientifically proven rules. Unfortunately in the field each pool has variables that you either can't measure or can't compensate for and so the results often don't balance like they should. So yes the science is correct, yes I can apply it, and no I don't always expect the right answer. And often I fly by the seat of my pants. I once talked to a Stanford Chemistry Professor with degrees out the wazoo. I explained the things I was encountering and he paused and said, "it sounds like you know more about this than I do, sorry".

My wife's been cooking what smelled like a great roast for a couple hours. She just brought it out, my stomachs been growling. It's a casserole that has nothing I can eat aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

Well, of course most complex systems trend towards chaos, but that doesn't mean we have to just throw up our hands and believe the clearly wrong answer because it comes with a clever and easy to remember quote, and doesn't require lots of reading.

There are thousands of simple solutions to complex problems that simply don't work. But solutions that work are often unique.

Very true, and more power to ya! I'm just a little black, little white, large amount of grey area kinda guy. So seldom am I absolutely positively sure I'm right. But I will often differ to the gentleman with the thick specs, and the bushy eyebrows.