213374U

All my toons are on RE. I didn't know you played there! They didn't exactly change anything "there" — they changed the whole game. There was a DPS nerf across the board when 3.0 hit. The idea was to have people in full itemized 192 gear parse the same as they were doing pre-3.0 in full Dread Master (186). It seems there was also an undocumented buff to silver mobs people were complaining about that made them deadlier than golds... but I never noticed that myself. Haven't been to Oricon after 3.0.

Gravity fields disappear when the masses that originate them cease to exist, dissipate or what have you. Black holes are thought to eventually evaporate so in the far future there would be no masses that can generate gravity. Do you mean gravitational waves? I have no idea what would happen with those in an expanding universe. I must admit, I'm not up to the latest developments, so heat death may well be obsolete. The point remains, however. The observed acceleration in the expansion of the universe results either in hyperacceleration (Big Rip) or the aforementioned heat death (depending on the cosmological constant IIRC). In the more extreme case of the Big Rip, at a certain point you have a situation where the observable universe is smaller than arbitrarily smaller structures, first tearing apart molecular bonds, then atomic nuclei, and finally fundamental particles. Either way, all information and possible observers have been destroyed. How can an infinite amount of anything be destroyed? What? Is this some new interpretation of the many-worlds theory or...? Never knowing or never being able to measure doesn't necessarily imply infinity. I'm not sure what you're getting at. I seem to remember that you railed against Walsingham answering for obyknven, with good reason. That's exactly what you are doing now. Whether it's infinite from the pov of any one human isn't relevant (in this thread). This is about information in a general sense. Is it infinite in the universe as a whole? I honestly don't know, but I'm leaning towards no. I'm not fond of infinity as a reality. I seem to remember that Gromnir has an actual physics degree so maybe he can comment, but he's not the only one who could offer an educated guess. More educated than mine, at any rate. Regardless, if you want to frame the question in human terms, then you must also limit the information pool that is relevant to any given human-scale decision by the same measure. At any rate, saying that one can never make informed decisions because "information is INFINITE" is... wacky.

No, I'm just trying to decide if doing good (or at least not doing evil) for the wrong reasons is still good. You can't have it both ways — you either define good/bad based on intent, or you define it based on results. Applying the definition selectively leads to paradoxes.

So, conversely, if one is a well-motivated killer, he should be commended on his diligence? That's... not something I've heard often.

My... my mom told you that you are a pre-pubescent girl? Was that before or after you asked her to read you Twilight fan fiction? Nevermind... none of my business. I won't judge.

Oh, come on. If I plan a genocide but I don't follow through with my plans, is it a bad trait to have? If I get jealous at my coworker and plan to make her look bad before the boss but I don't at the last minute, is it a bad trait to have? That sort of general life advice or whatever you want to call it is meaningless, and that's why "acting on what you believe" is useless. Circumstances define if it's good or bad. Personally, you may deeply respect people who commit honor suicides — I'm not sure if you're just playing devil's advocate here. Me, I think it's silly.

Being female? Sitting down eating popcorn, rather.

^ If only it was like that IRL.

[...] As an aside, I'd love to hear an explanation on why information is infinite. I was under the impression that the universe is a closed system with finite energy. This would suggest that information in a quantum sense is, indeed, finite. However, by virtue of the principle of uncertainty, we know that information doesn't really "exist" unless an observer makes a measurement, and at that precise moment and by virtue of the measurement, the relevant "information" bit comes into existence. Again, since there can only be a limited amount of observers making a finite amount of measurements (because the universe has a finite energy, remember), information is also finite. Further, a prominent model of the end of the universe predicts that it will end with what is called "heat death". In this scenario, the universe becomes esentially a nothingness without distinguishable features (in simple terms, no information). If all information has been destroyed, this means information was finite to begin with. So what makes you say that information is infinite? Well, professor. What's your take?

Pretty much, yeah: Remember, this was in response to somebody suggesting that people are driven to suicide out of desperation. You don't believe what? This sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense. What is something trying to force through my mind? Try again, please. And if you read carefully, I haven't actually disagreed with this. I only suggest that people have been informed of all possible alternatives to death and can make the decision freely, fully in possession of their mental faculties. Whether this is the case for people with obesity is up for debate. Damn. You really are scary. If I was a pre-pubescent girl. And didn't know that behind every internet tough guy there is a sad, afraid little man. Nope. The fallacy lies with you assuming that obese people choosing suicide have 100% of relevant information and 100% unimpaired mental faculties. "They should just go ahead because they chose it and they know what's good for themselves", right? I already provided evidence and self-evident facts (people don't generally know about medicine and sports science unless they study medicine and sports science) to cast doubt on that assumption. I threw in some personal experience for good measure. Your counter so far has simply amounted to circular logic (If a person decides to commit suicide it's their decision) and dogma (Human beings are perfectly capable of making decisions about themselves they see fit). As I said, Don Quixote, I don't want to decide for anybody. I'm not the one running for office, remember? Done and done. I eagerly await your explanation. Oh, wow. Such sharp wit. You bad boy, you. I bet the ladies love it... in all of that fantastical kingdom you have built up in your mind.

Unlike you, I actually give reasoned argumentations of my points. They aren't ironclad... and I'm giving you the opportunity to address the whole paragraph you were quoting instead of just going off on a tangent about the last sentence. Here, try again: Any "life coach"? Funny, the coaches I've met are more interested in dealing with specific problems and offering experience-based advice than vague grandiloquent statements about success and failure. You must be speaking about the Facebook variant of "life coaches". Or perhaps the pseudoscience peddlers you can find in NLP seminars. It's irrelevant though, as you simply cannot prove that "any life coach would X". I agree, trial and error is an essential part of the learning process. You may have missed the part where implementing suicide prevents you from learning anything else, though. I did no such thing. It's good that you have finally understood that we are discussing obese people with suicidal tendencies, though. Now, how is suicide an objective solution to obesity? Because, you know, people may be entitled to make a decision, but that doesn't automatically mean they are making the right decision. Exactly. Wow, you really are a class act, aren't you? Let me ask you though: if you don't give a **** what happens to such people, what are you doing in this thread? Why are you offering advice on how such people should act? Yep. Evidence such as the article in the OP, the chart aluminiumtrioxid posted, the studies I linked to, etc. That's what we are discussing, but you keep insisting that your objectivist wet dreams are more relevant... or something. How is it off-topic? Please explain how three articles studying the relationship between obesity and mental health (one of them focusing on dementia) are irrelevant in a discussion about obesity... and mental faculties. It gets better, because you asked for "the studies that shown correlation between overweight and brain functions", which took me a full five minutes to dig up. Then you start crying that they are not relevant. Do try to be a bit more subtle with your strawmanning. I already said I don't mean to imply that obese people are mentally ill. You are conflating correlation and causality. As I said, science doesn't work that way. Pay attention, please. As a matter of fact, you did say it: So, yeah, it is evidence-based. Inasmuch as your pathetic internet tough guy talk can be considered "evidence", anyway.

Wall of text: The Sequel If you wanted me to give you Twilight fanfic links, why didn't you say so? I won't judge. The articles I linked to study the relationship between obesity and depression in some cases and dementia in others. The correlation between obesity and depression is hard to dispute, at least in those studies. I'll be happy to read and discuss other studies that find no such correlation if you can find them. but that doesn't mean everyone that is obese will be depressed, and it doesn't mean everyone that is obese will inevitably develop Alzheimer's. That is not how science works, and I never claimed that obese people are mentally impaired. I actually wrote a post for Valsuelm explaining what exactly I meant, both in a general sense and in this particular context. Go read it. (And yes, that was you strawmanning) Yep, that doesn't follow from what I said. Nice try, no dice. You are talking about people making the decision that suicide is right for them. I contest that on the basis that it's not generally an informed decision. I base this on the self-evident fact that people don't know everything. Therefore, they should put off the decision to off themselves until they have all the relevant facts. This is a counter-argument specifically to your suggestion that people kill themselves when they think that's what they must do, not when they are trying to decide if they should wear pants or not, or any other daily, inconsequential decision. Or do you think people should fly airliners and operate nuclear reactors before receving proper training because your life coach told you that "the outcome isn't always important" and "being passive is always wrong"? I'm not deciding for anyone. I'm actually very much for people making their own decisions, provided they are informed and FREE decisions. Under the circumstances we are discussing, they are not, as per above. Leave the windmills alone, Don Quixote. More hand-waving. I provided both an abstract reasoning and a real world analogy to show why your solution (death) isn't a solution at all. Care to discuss that? "If a person decides to commit suicide it's their decision". Well, duh. See above for my stance on decisions. Nah. Let's say I give you $100. You don't give the guy to your right $100, you give them some bread. Then that person gives the one to their right a hug and so on and so forth depending on what each individual skills and needs are. And considering that support networks are very much a real thing, the burden of proof is on you to establish that "life doesn't work that way". And nope, I didn't say you need to seek guidance and advice before you act. I said you need to seek advice and guidance before you make any serious personal investment in general, and in particular (again, context) before killing yourself. If only because the permanent nature of that act precludes any further rectifications. That was you strawmanning. **** yeah. **** happens. Step up or shut up. Do or die. It's showtime, mother****ers. Now, if we are done spouting meaningless one-liners and your boner has gone away, maybe we can talk? Nope, you don't need to have ALL the information. You just need enough. How much is enough? In this context, sufficient to recognize that there are ways out of obesity that don't entail killing yourself. As an aside, I'd love to hear an explanation on why information is infinite. I was under the impression that the universe is a closed system with finite energy. This would suggest that information in a quantum sense is, indeed, finite. However, by virtue of the principle of uncertainty, we know that information doesn't really "exist" unless an observer makes a measurement, and at that precise moment and by virtue of the measurement, the relevant "information" bit comes into existence. Again, since there can only be a limited amount of observers making a finite amount of measurements (because the universe has a finite energy, remember), information is also finite. Further, a prominent model of the end of the universe predicts that it will end with what is called "heat death". In this scenario, the universe becomes esentially a nothingness without distinguishable features (in simple terms, no information). If all information has been destroyed, this means information was finite to begin with. So what makes you say that information is infinite?

Any "life coach"? Funny, the coaches I've met are more interested in dealing with specific problems and offering experience-based advice than vague grandiloquent statements about success and failure. You must be speaking about the Facebook variant of "life coaches". Or perhaps the pseudoscience peddlers you can find in NLP seminars. It's irrelevant though, as you simply cannot prove that "any life coach would X". I agree, trial and error is an essential part of the learning process. You may have missed the part where implementing suicide prevents you from learning anything else, though. Oh, and please elaborate on how being passive and not acting is always wrong. Repetition of a baseless statement does not magically turn it into an ironclad argument. I didn't add anything. YOU were replying to TrueNeutral's post, here: I don't know if that's really "working correctly" because "feeling bad about it" can take so many forms. I highly doubt a person whose psychological response to seeing a fit person is "you'll never look like that, go die in a hole you fat pig" is going to be motivating, let alone the "correct response". Correct response would be acting on that response not only think it. Let me explain: if you quote somebody, it is assumed you are replying to what that person is saying. Like, directly making a follow-up comment in the same context, be it to support, dispute, offer a different viewpoint, or post a funny gif. If mean to make unrelated comments, the button you want reads "start new topic". The issue is with the reasons that drive someone to "quit" or "stop carrying". The idea that people may think it's right to quit and ACTUALLY being right can only stand with perfect free will and omniscience as premises. But then, there are those who have them, and there are those who don't, right? And those who don't end up killing themselves because hey, "that is the way of things". Some are weak, some are strong, some will die and you don't really give a flying ****. **** happens, right? That's awesome. The Objectivism thread is that-a-way. Here we discuss evidence-based stuff. While I'm explaining, providing links and sharing personal experience to illustrate my points, you are just waving your hands so hard that I can hear the sonic boom from here. I already explained those 3 in the last post. Your answer was "your point?". This clearly means you didn't understand anything. Go back and read it again. And again. And again. Until you understand and are able to produce an actual rebuttal. I'll be waiting. Ah, of course. It is logical for those who think they must kill themselves to kill themselves. And you would if you did, because that's how you roll. But of course you will *never* think that yourself. Must be great to be one of the master race, no? ...and they were saying TN is full of it... It is a consequence of the statement. One that you have already admitted to, yourself, in this very post. Let me put it in simple flowchart format for you. "ACT ON WHAT YOU BELIEVE! FOR GREAT JUSTICE!" → Fail → "TRY AGAIN, YOU WRETCHED UNTERMENSCH!" → Nope, no good → Suicide? If a person keeps failing, does not see a way to succeed, and this failure is tied to their self-worth, they may be led to consider suicide. This is both an actual real world occurrence AND the hypothetic case you were replying to. By your own advice, and your own admission above, they should kill themselves "because that's what they believe is right". This is not only a fairly terrible thing to say and symptomatic of a total lack of empathy, but it's also pretty bad logic.

Thinking back on it now, it was pretty hilarious in an absurd way back when they first released it and the FP was bugged. Revan would give you his grand speech... and then he would proceed to chop up the whole cast, PC included, all by himself, and there was nothing you could do to stop him. I can almost imagine Hall Hood going "thought you could beat up the golden boy did you? Well, not in THIS game chump!". Of course, I doubt people back then would have agreed it was in any way funny...

Again, I am sorry if you can't follow the consequences, implications, or even the context of what you are saying. "Acting on what you think is right", while at first glance may sound like great life advice to make motivational Facebook pics with, is actually useless as far as any real world application is concerned, and in the scope of this discussion, is especially insidious because it suggests that people can be separated in two categories: those who merely think, and those who also act (in which conveniently, of course, you fall). I already explained to you why I reached these conclusions, but worry not, I am happy to try again: (1) is a natural implication of any sort of advice. I've never heard anyone giving out advice that is openly inteded to cause the recipient to fail or quit. Until now, I guess? (3) is your fault, actually. You were replying to a post of someone else's that was talking about how someone's psychological response can drive them to consider suicide due to not believing they can do anything else. Your reply said that "thinking" about it was incorrect and they should do it. I left (2) for last, because it's the crux and requires the most explaining. As illustrated by the chart posted aluminiumtrioxid and my own comments (though I didn't actually post any statistics), the problem isn't that most people don't do anything about it, it's that they actually fail at some point, because they lack the necessary tools to reach their goals and stay there. So at that point, some people have already tried, failed (often several times), and are driven to grief, self-hatred, hopelessness, etc. If they continue to act on what they believe, they must kill themselves. This was a hypothetic case brought up by TrueNeutral, but it's what you replied to. Try and keep up, will you? And by the way, the tactic you are accusing me of is called strawmanning. It's not used to cover holes in one's argument, but to discredit an opponent by misrepresenting their stance into one that is easier to attack. That's not quite what I'm doing — I'm simply taking the "reasoning" to its logical conclusion. That you didn't consider where your arguments lead before running your mouth isn't my problem. You have had several opportunities to clarify what exactly you meant, but you haven't actually done so, settling merely for complaining repeatedly that you are being misrepresented. What exactly were you trying to suggest? Do you even know? You missed the point. It's not that you can't talk about how you follow your own advice because you are James Bond. It's that you cannot possibly follow your own advice because it's unrealistic; it's not advice. It's feel-good mumbo jumbo designed to feed your übermensch fantasies. On second thought however, I may have been wrong. Hypocrite is he who chooses not to follow his own advice when applicable. I think the proper term for someone who heartily hands out and believes in advice that cannot be followed is... insane. That's great, but this thread isn't about you not considering suicide if you fail — it's about overweight people. You made the discussion into hopeless overweight people with deep self-esteem issues that can drive them to consider suicide because that is what you were replying to. Now, and to complete the analogy, if you repeatedly fail and are driven to considering suicide, will you kill yourself? Do you believe that is rational? Fail at what? Making a fool of myself? I have the method down, thanks. But if I need any pointers, I'll be sure to ask. (you may have missed the part where I AM ACTUALLY CONTESTING YOUR INSANE SUGGESTION THAT PEOPLE KILL THEMSELVES WHEN THEY FAIL, that is, the last three pages. No, I will not kill myself.) http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2009.172809 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14504119 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2008.00473.x/abstract;jsessionid=E86FA7D40CB082380B705FE737A92F02.f01t01 Yes, that you aren't an expert is abundantly clear at this point. I dug that up in literally five minutes. Just Google "obesity comorbidity" and start reading up. I don't need to prove that overweight people don't have all the relevant information because that's the default state for everyone, including overweight people, unless they have devoted significant resources and time into this matter, just like everyone's default state is not knowing how to fly an airliner or what beta decay is. Ah, yes. The famous "rational suicide". Even if we accept such a thing as possible, it's outside of the scope of this discussion, because the right to die is brought up in cases of terminal illness, extreme pain, brain death, tetraplegia, that sort of thing. Obesity doesn't fit these criteria. "bluh bluh bluh but if someone chooses to die you must let them" — from an ethical pov, I agree. From a practical one, it's never that simple. I'm sorry, do I need to provide formal proof of each rebuttal to your non-arguments? It is you who needs to prove that death is a solution to any problem. PROTIP: You can't. Death is a non-solution because it removes the subject from the sentence "I have a problem". The problem isn't addressed at all, it simply no longer applies because the subject has ceased to exist. When faced with an irresoluble problem that simply cannot be allowed to continue, removing the subject may be the last resort, but only if all other possible solutions have been attempted previously. This is the equivalent of you telling someone with eyesight problems to keep their eyes closed. Seriously, don't quit your day job. Brace yourself now. I am going to introduce you to a revolutionary concept that will surely blow you away. Behold! (shamelessly stolen from Google Images. Sue me) Imagine that each figure in that image receives help from the one to their right. They are both giving... and receiving... at the same time! Incredible, I know. But it gets better, I've spoken to a shrink that admitted to needing help from other shrink. OMG shrinkception! Sadly the problem is that they may not realize that they need help. They may not want to accept it even if they need it for myriad reasons. Case in point, I'm 31 and only recently have received a preliminary ADD diagnosis, and it was only through blind luck. Didn't I ever think I might need help? Was I trying to tough it out? What? Heh.

Well, you didn't completely read it wrong, but in the case of overweight people, it's more a matter of people not being aware of the different options available to them, and a lack of understanding of the consequences of their common habits and lifestyles. Under these circumstances, it is simply not possible to make informed decisions, i.e. person X really can't know what's good for themselves because they don't have some basic facts down. Again, this is from my personal experience working in the fitness industry. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, yadda, yadda. The cognitive impairment part of the comment was more directed at "letting people choose for themselves", which is, again, something I'm very much for. So while relevant to your comment in a general sense, may not apply in this particular context. That said, I'm told that extremely obese people have serious confidence and self-control issues, as well as an installed feeling of hopelessness that may very well interfere with their decision-making processes. Not to mention people who are obese because food is a coping mechanism for something else, etc. I really can't speak about that because I've never worked with someone like that, though.

Are you sure? Apparently some people disagree: I'm sorry that you can't seem to deal with the implications of your "solutions". As I explained, you cannot be certain of how many people took the "correct" approach and failed, and are then left in a situation where trying again seems pointless and all they can do is think about it (even if only because being fat carries a stigma that cannot be avoided). The only possible way to follow your "advice" perfectly is to never fail at anything. Understand this: knowing what the solution of a problem seems to be and having the tools required to implement that solution are very different things. In your manichaean correct/incorrect fantasy, you are ignoring the implementation process completely, as people should continue to try and do what is "correct" according to you ad infinitum until they succeed (or kill themselves). A popular definition of madness (misattributed to Einstein) is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. And, by the way, selectively tagging what other people say as "ludicrous" to avoid discussing it is called hand-waving. It's painfully obvious when you do it to those who can recognize the tactic and raises suspicions that you are covering a hole in your argument. Oh, but it does, when their statements are of a moralizing nature, i.e. "this is the correct way to do X", which is what you did. Patronizing is bad enough in and of itself, but when it's done by someone who lacks complete moral superiority because they can't follow their own advice to the letter (among other things because the advice is unrealistic), it's hypocrisy. Good. What will you do if you fail to get elected and cannot change this disfunctional society into something you consider functional? You will then have failed and the alternative is, by your own logic, to kill yourself, rather than sit back and perhaps reflect on what may have gone wrong. Perhaps the solution you thought was correct isn't quite so, or maybe you lack the tools to implement said solution. Personally, and considering your expressed views in this and other threads about killing, suicide, and what is "correct", I hope you crash and burn spectacularly. Sincerely, from the bottom of my heart. Hugs and kisses. PS. I thank you for your advice, but I am very fond my right to make a fool of myself online and in person, and exercise it regularly. Get off your high horse. And that's a perspective I'm 100% behind, provided two requisites are met. To wit, that the subject in question has his cognitive abilities absolutely unimpaired and that he is aware of all available alternatives and can choose between them freely. Unfortunately, with overweight people, this usually isn't the case, from my experience at least. When the alternative is suicide, almost anything is better. If only because you cannot rectify and try different things after committing suicide, and you can always kill yourself later if literally everything else has failed. People consider suicide when they see no way out of the situation they are in. That doesn't always mean there is no way out, and in this particular context there very much is a way out that is attainable for just about anyone with adequate guidance and support.

I may have been too hasty, if so, I apologize. Perhaps you can prove my assumptions wrong about your coherence by explaining how you always act the way you think, and how you never fail at any endeavors. The italiziced part is critical because past failures count against your ability to try again and they also particularly invalidate your previous claims in this thread (you don't know how many people are thinking about how they should do something about their excess weight after having failed several times in the past). So pray tell, How many social advocacy issues are you actively involved with (and have succeeded at) to fix this dysfunctional society? How good are your personal marks at the sports of your choice? How much have you contributed to expanding the boundaries of human knowledge? Because if you can't say or you haven't, then you aren't really doing what you should be doing according to your own statements, and you are just "thinking without acting". You can trust me when I say I'm really not full of it (I just went), and I wouldn't exactly call myself an expert, but safety rule #1 is to have at least a basic medical examination before starting any exercise regime, regardless of intensity, if you weren't exercising before. After that, finding someone who can give you the basic ability/mobility tests such as these would be highly recommendable as well. Sedentarism wrecks your body and you can exercise without noticing any problems for months or years until *crack*.

The problem I see with this outlook is that you aren't applying it to yourself. Either you are a perfect achiever who unfailingly sets for himself and accomplishes the right goals all the time no matter how titanic the task ahead, or you are just another internets windbag with ample amounts of hypocrisy filling in for empathy and experience dealing with actual, flesh and blood people. The classic closet social Darwinist. Which one is it?

No need to wonder, that's what God 4chan gave us the "2/10 would not bang" meme for.

Yep, that seems sensible. It's the way I try to conduct myself as well. Unfortunately I've found that it all comes down to what I believe is appropriate/inoffensive/necessary, and there is no way around that because thankfully I cannot read minds and adjust my speech or posts to a reaction that hasn't occurred yet. It is an inevitable imposition. I act this way out of a personal choice or belief, but I'm not sure that simply trying not to offend or considering that the offense is warranted makes me blameless when (if) it happens. This is where PC or culturally imposed avoidance of some ideas or topics can "help". By stifling free speech regarding certain sensitive topics, offense is avoided (duh) in all cases. Thing is, I'm not sure all debates about these particular topics are useful, and PC is simply filling the gap left by prudence, a virtue in decline nowadays, as the risk of getting your ass kicked is no longer omnipresent in discussions. In these cases, we are well served by PC as no usefulness exists that can be balanced vs potential (certain?) offense. Yes, yes... who can say if there is something to be gained from discussing a topic before the discussion can begin? Yes, I'm very superficially familiar with the ideas you mention (thanks for the recommendation though, I'll check it out). I was more referring to the specific remark you made about racism as an emergent property of cultural inertia, as that resonates with my own ideas but I'm not aware of any obvious connections to cognitive science.

The actual article is behind a registration wall, so unless somebody takes one for the team and posts the whole thing, there is no way to tell exactly what the researchers found, much less draw any practical conclusions from it. That being said, Changing what you eat (or more strictly learning to eat) and taking up a training regime that is tailored to you by a qualified professional will lead to a more healthy body composition. There is abundant research that consistently shows that a caloric deficit will lead to weight loss, some of which is freely available. Sure, there may be the odd case that remains obese no matter what, but black swans arent statistically significant. Bummer if you happen to be one, though. Maintaining a "healthy" body composition is much harder. Behavioral modification is certainly a neglected aspect in the fitness part of the equation (the other one being medical advice), and from what I've read, statistics show that not only self-reported success rates are very low, but also that rebounding back to bad habits and as a result to excess weight is more common than the alternative (!). There is very little teamwork going on between medical and fitness professionals (except maybe at the pro sports level, but that's neither here nor there), and even when there is, seldom do they have the skills needed to provide the subject with the tools to maintain the gains they have made in the long run. And considering how much money there is involved in treating the problem as opposed to solving it, I doubt this paradigm will change. Regardless, the headline is clearly misleading. "Diet and exercise" are a cure for obesity, provided the patient can stick to the treatment. It's interesting that in the article intro, it says "These adaptations might be potent enough to undermine the long-term effectiveness of lifestyle modification in most individuals with obesity, particularly in an environment that promotes energy overconsumption." That's not diet and exercise that are at fault then, now are they? (hint: when it says "environment" it's not referring to a heat transfer in a thermodynamic sense) In my opinion common sense is simply another term for low level logical thinking skills - which is a built-in skill. Interesting theory. Is that mathematical logic you are referring to? Formal (Aristotelian) logic? Computational logic perhaps? Because most people can do none of those without training and, in fact, it happens to be fairly counterintuitive. Formal logic developed as a tool to identify and correct fallacies i.e. "informal" logic errors. Much like mathematics, it doesn't come naturally to the population at large.

What? Say it ain't so! edit: I just logged in and tried to download HoI3 and AP. It didn't prompt me to install Steam. Is this for new releases, new purchases, or...?

That sounds like a cop-out to me. Not being offensive vs not being needlessly offensive? In which cases do you need to be offensive? Necessity in this context is as nebulously defined as the very non rules you mention. Where do you draw the line? Smoking or non-smoking seat? Whole grain or white bread? Kantian or Hobbesian ethics?! Does being devoid of any offensive intent absolve you of the responsibility for the offense that you know your remarks may cause? I agree that there is no right not to be offended. The most popular solution is to "grow a thicker skin". Not that this applies specifically to you, mind. Unfortunately, suggesting that others grow a thicker skin is about as useful as telling a drowning man to swim harder. And more than a bit hypocritical unless the one making the suggestion is literally incapable of being offended. Were that we could all be perfectly detached and level headed in our interactions. Through empathy (and possibly extraordinary interpersonal skill and courage) it may be possible* to arrive at an outcome that is beneficial for all involved. It's a way to do away with the need for self-censorship, not a path to reinforce it. Regardless, everyone avoids some topics. Nobody is a perfectly frank, assertive, stone cold bearer of truth, internets posturing notwithstanding, because the price of clinging to and defending The Truth 24/7 can be too high. We are wired to value comfort and safety over The Truth. PC is just that tendency made into a meme. You say PC has a chilling effect on free speech. This is automatically assumed to be bad (again, not necessarily by yourself, as you acknowledge that PC can be useful in principle). It can only be necessarily bad however if absolute free speech is considered good. I... don't know about that. Sorry if I offended you, but I thought it was necessary! *though you may well end up sleeping on the couch. IANAP

Which of them is best for beginners? I always were really interested in Paradox games, but I always sucked at these type of games. And because of Steam, I never bothered to try them either. P'dox have their own digital distribution outlet, Gamersgate. It's really lightweight (doesn't install anything but the game) and drm-free unless otherwise specified. I bought most of my P'dox games there... and Alpha Protocol. Get the one whose historical setting appeals the most to you, play through the tutorials, and read the wiki. Start with a small or medium country to get yourself familiarized with the mechanics, then move on to a major. Get ready to sink some serious hours into it. My favorite is Victoria, hands down. And I could never really get into EU:Rome. Too slow.