Upon rethinking this a bit, I'm more upset with the person making excuses about their laziness somehow getting an article out of it.[/QUOTE]I'm with Shego on this one, mostly on the broader issue of "I'm making an excuse to feel better about my laziness regarding issue x."
They're trying to find ways to defend it and think it has to be "literal" for there to be implications.This is getting a little too obtuse for me.
it bashed crunches?
citation please. Please be prepared to deconstruct your citation and show it it says that crunches are 'bad'.
Didn't think that was necessary but there you go.You'll never find me in the gym doing endless crunches to obtain a perfectly taught sixpack. Don't need it. Don't want it. Not gonna use my precious time in pursuit of it.
You have to be purposely blocking out the obvious, I can't find any other explanation.[/QUOTE]She showed distaste for the one type of exercise that would change her tummy from what she wanted and liked. That's it.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what you're doing. It makes sense.Have you heard of the psychological term of transference? It is where you redirect your emotions to something that does not warrant that emotion. That is the only explanation for what you are doing here because the conclusions you draw are in now way supported by the text
She clearly says that doing crunches will lead to six-pack abs. That is a clear benefit. She then goes on to say that she, personally, is not interested in having them, and doesn't feel she needs them.Please show how she says they're good or that they have benefits, or that anywhere in the article she says that exercise is better than letting yourself "be natural"?
I'm very sure you're aware of "indirectly speaking".
Everything I have said, and pretty much everything everyone else has said, has been supported by the text.Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what you're doing. It makes sense.Have you heard of the psychological term of transference? It is where you redirect your emotions to something that does not warrant that emotion. That is the only explanation for what you are doing here because the conclusions you draw are in now way supported by the text
I've highlighted a little something for you, dear.Which she directly says is a waste of her time.
So since you can't or refuse to comprehend the obvious, you sling insults. Figures.Everything I have said, and pretty much everything everyone else has said, has been supported by the text.
Now you are just being childish.
Sorry, I have been taught in my life to value evidence and fact. That kind of thinking doesn't lend itself well to broad extrapolations.Highlight all you want, it helps my argument.
So since you can't or refuse to comprehend the obvious, you sling insults. Figures.Everything I have said, and pretty much everything everyone else has said, has been supported by the text.
Now you are just being childish.
Your argument is that people shouldn't justify laziness by saying being fat is natural.I only know my own point completely but I think Shego and I are on the same page.
Your argument is that people shouldn't justify laziness by saying being fat is natural.I only know my own point completely but I think Shego and I are on the same page.
Well yeah.Sorry let me clarify:
Fat according to the Health Board of America not the Victoria Secret/Beautifulpeople.com standard.
I was told that if you have to state something is obvious that means it probably isn't.Not seeing the obvious, that's ludicrous.
Then I respectfully rescind.You're not allowed that opinion Gusto, cause it didn't say that in EXACT WORDING. "See above post"
If there isn't, there should be. Well, we could name it after you since you brought it up.Is there some kind of Godwin's Law equivalent for when, in a thread discussing feminine issues, someone claims someone else is on their period?
Hmm...