I would.
I know it was Ghandi, but I still wouldn't call it a compliment.
That religious part was a quote from Gandhi. It just fit the topic of discussion.
Already did, actually. No need to take you seriously anymore.
So you can't. As I thought. It's been a pleasure, and I hope you realize now what an idiot you've been.
Dude, you're the one who turned this into Twinkie-Gate. I don't have to quote you on anything. It's very clear what your stance is on sponge cakes.
You failed this challenge the last 2 times I posed it, let's shoot for number 3. Quote me on it. I did actually say various things against the fat people who were fat by choice and poor diet. At no point did I say all fat people were fat for that reason. Again, you're debating a strawman. If you restrict your rebuttals to things I've actually said, you have no argument with me.
I did read what you wrote. Your point was that literally all obese people, including my mother, got that way from eating a daily box of twinkies.
I never made ANY argument of the post hoc ergo propter hoc form. No matter how many times you accuse me of it, it still never happened. Seriously your entire argument would cease to exist if you would actually read what I say before trying to argue with it.
Yes energy is being spent. But less than is being consumed. Your body can not store energy that does not exist. Never did I say twinkled were the only cause of fat. I said excess energy was the cause of fat. This is about the 10th time you've refuted the same strawman. It isn't any more my argument now than it was the first time.
Precisely. It's only a fallacy when there is more than one cause. And as is the case with something like insulin resistance, energy is being spent, but fat is still being stored. It's called a hormone deficiency, and it is not the result of eating a box of Twinkies for breakfast. There are many causes. X happened after Y, therefore Y caused X is not a reasonable argument, and anybody with half a brain would know that. You should lay off the Twinkies. I'm assuming you were projecting, right? Maybe eat some fruit for breakfast. It'll help your cognition.
Again, only when there isn't actually only a single cause. It's only a fallacy when it's wrong. Again we have already gone through each and every one of your 'causes', and determined that in fact, they all go back to the same single cause. It doesn't matter how energy excess is achieved. Energy excess is the only cause. Proving a dozen different ways to end up with an energy excess is not a refutation. You've only helped me to make my point
Yes, you did propose a singular cause. What you did is called casual reduction, and casual reduction is ridiculous.
Yes, I proposed a single cause, and defended it. And you have utterly failed to dispute it. You've done a wonderful job of disputing the single cause you imagined that I proposed, but not the one I actually stated. Unlike Rowan, I have no interest in pandering to your stupidity.
You didn't. You proposed a single cause for something a bit more complex than that, and unlike how Rowan presented his points, you presented yours like a dick.
