Skeptic Project

So Bill ignores absolutely everything I said again, Good job Bill you crazy conspiracy theorist.

And Matt, thanks for letting me know you were just winding me up. your Poe is truly excellent. I did think unbelievable that anyone could say things as insanely stupidly ignorant as you were posting, you just seemed like you really meant it. A great parody!

Matt, that link doesn't explain where the meat comes from and how the animals are raised. There's also no comparison data showing the nutritional content of meat raised via other methods. I can't tell much of anything from that.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=video&cd=25&ved=0CEUQtwIwBDgU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hulu.com%2Fwatch%2F208808%2Fportlandia-ordering-the-chicken-part-1&rct=j&q=portlandia&ei=JwVHTZWgC4aisQOl-6jRCg&usg=AFQjCNE0rMVkchAbg6rD3GLKuIe-dP5hKg&sig2=DenKS2076tN3c8h9W98uzg&cad=rja

@Ed كافر has gathered a lot of the information about McDonald's Hamburgers are so good in this thread. The numbers that you created to make your point about why McDonald's hamburgers are not healthy proved that you are just making up his numbers out of thin air to illustrate your point. You even created fictional scenerios then claimed you had demonstrated something when you hadn't at all.

I also proved that there was a great deal of difference in what our goals for nutrition are and what he believed them to be. Further discrediting his point. And further proving mine.

The biggest point here Ed, is that we propose a scientific approach as to why McDonald's is so nutritional that people with a agenda with fast food such as yourself spend all their time trying to justify why all fast food is bad. An McDonald's Hamburger of today compared to an McDonald's Hamburger ten years from now would likely be very different in nutrition but as it stands today a McDonald's Hamburger is nutritional.

So I guess I will dig up your words for you? why should I? Like I said before Ed Your going to have to cite sources for this because frankly I do no believe. I gave you sources and now your just going to say you don't trust the sources. We could be doing this over and over again and it is a waste of my time. Again, you said you were going to prove we were wrong. Not the other way around.

@Ed Quite frankly. No. I was attempting to demonstrate for you how absurd the idea that hamburgers from McDonald's are not healthy.

I do not trust you as a source when it comes to your successful rebuking all of the points. However, that aside I don't really care what happened before you got here. You had a agenda and decided to push so you participated in a debate here wherein you were going to emphatically prove that our idea was about McDonald's being healthy was not going to work for your agenda. So far you have failed to do this. And have instead proven that you don't understand the idea in the first place.

I have already given you evidence. I have provided links to a great deal of it and you are simply refusing to research it. Again, I am not going to spend hours re-typing every piece of information needed to present here for a single person to read who refuses to do the research himself before he makes grandiose claims that he can emphatically prove we are wrong about something he doesn't even understand.

Sigh....

There is science to back up a lot of what we say. There are also tons examples in this thread of McDonald's hamburgers in being nutritional supported by academics. I have suggested you review the material and your refusing to do so.

We are suggesting a scientific approach to why McDonald's is nutritional as opposed to making up data to meet a agenda. That's all we have ever said it was.

Again, the material is all here.I suggest you read it. I am not going to re-type it for you. If you went through all the effort to make up those numbers you can put some effort into studying what it is you claim to be able to emphatically prove wrong.

I tried defining "unhealthy food" as food that is either toxic / pathogenic or has an ingredient that exceeds 33% of RDA based on a 3 meal a day diet.

Ed wants us to ask a nutritionist for a professional definition, which is definitely a valid request.

@domokato:

I provided various expert sources and journal articles that talk about the healthiness (or unhealthiness as the case may be) of fast food (high fat, high salt) You might want to check some of those long posts since thats where a lot of the quotes and links are.

Matt seems to think emailing Dunning is somehow relevant. He isn't a nutritionist or anything related he is a "computer scientist" but he isn't actually a real scientist either and his only credential is "Writing for Film and Television". There's nothing wrong with that, but it also means his opinion isn't worth anything.

Now I have provided many expert opinions on the matter and some peer reviewer papers, no one arguing the healthiness of McDonalds has even tried to do so. As Bill keeps pointing it, its just so obvious he doesn't need to. I mean look at that picture of a cheeseburger! Yum! That's enough to know its healthy, right? (yes that is his entire argument) All the experts are clearly idiots with an anti-McDonalds agenda, just like with 911, they want to suppress the truth! (yes, this IS just like that)

As I pointed out on the other page, the cheeseburger (and the double cheeseburger) is actually one of the worst burgers available at McDonalds in terms of saturated fats and salt. Aaron started to accept that maybe some of the other burgers were high fat and high sodium, but still refused to accept that the cheeseburger was high fat or high salt, but he obviously hadn't looked at the figures (provided by McDonalds) which showed how wrong he was.

But I've said all this a hundred times, the bottom line is anyone that agrees with people like Bill IS a conspiracy theorist. They have not even tried to find any expert source that backs them up.

@Bill:

You said:

-

"I do not trust you as a source when it comes to your successful rebuking all of the points."

-
I never asked you to trust my opinion, thats why I gave you lots of legitimate expert sources.

There are also tons examples in this thread of McDonald's hamburgers in being nutritional supported by academics.

Oh you are funny, absolutely no experts have been cited that said MCDonalds is nutritious healthy food like you claim. I did show you experts that said the opposite though, but we know you ignore all that.

You also keep lying about me making up data, how sad. Too bad you can't even tell me what data you're talking about isn't it!

So...like, if a food goes over 33% of the RDA for sodium, let's say, it is "unhealthy"? Or what? Because I can eat a big mac and then fruits and veggies for the rest of the day and never go over my sodium RDA. You claim to seems be that big macs are "unhealthy", so where do you draw the line?

Again you're talking about diet, what is it with you and Aaron? I can also eat a Mars bar and eat great stuff the rest of the day, the Mars bar ITSELF is still unhealthy. McDonalds can be fine as long as its part of a well balanced nutritious diet, the point is that McDonalds burgers and fries ITSELF is neither.

Also 33% is what Aaron pulled out of nowhere. Nutritionists everywhere consider fast food like McDonalds to be high in fat and high in salt. I don't know, as I said on the previous page to Aaron, what nutritionists consider to be the magic number of bad fats where it is considered a "high fat" food or a "high salt" food, what I do know is how they use the term to refer to fast food. Please read the sources I gave, you can start on the previous page and work back where I provided various sources and journal articles saying how bad fast food (high fat, high salt) is for you.

What Aaron also said was that while some of the burgers from McDonalds (not sure he specified which) were high in fat and sodium, the cheeseburger was not. He was wrong, it is even worse in that regard than the Big Mac gram for gram. The Double Cheeseburger is also worse than eating a Big Mac.

Dunning from Skeptoid also said that their cheeseburger is nutritious, "well balanced in every food group and that eating 3 Double Quarterpounders and Cheese "amounts to a good, healthy, slim 2,200 calorie diet for an adult". You planning on defending that too domokato? You're going to have a hard time.

I have provided all those expert sources and the best anyone else has ever done in this thread is point to a picture of a cheeseburger and say something like... see there's like onion in that burger and that be vegetables and there's protein in ma burger so that means its healthy! So I do expect you have something solid next time someone wants to challenge this.

That does it.

If this thread was a dog, I'd have it put down.

If this thread was a car, I'd have it impounded.

If this thread was a starving homeless man on the corner of Haight and Ashbury begging for a bite of my ham and turkey sandwich, I'D KILL HIM IN BROAD DAYLIGHT.

Hey snob, if you don't like it please don't complain about it just don't read it. Let those that want to actually talk about it do so.

"Hey snob, if you don't like it please don't complain about it just don't read it. Let those that want to actually talk about it do so."

Thank you, dad.

@Ed OK, now your just in denial, or you honestly your going to convince me you don't have a agenda? And I would dare say that means there is not much we are going to accomplish here. I gave you more then one example of proof as to why McDonald's is nutritional.

Ed the conversation topic is this:

He came here claiming he could demonstrate emphatically that what we propose about McDonald's being nutritional is in fact wrong. He then demonstrated he doesn't even have a strong grasp of what we propose in the first place. Then Ed tried to state that I am in a position where I have to explain it to him, insisting that I must re-type out all the material for him that he should of studied before he made a bold statement like that in the first place.

As the conversation progressed, he made up some numbers based on no statistics, including numbers that he drew up about what he believed were going to help him in his agenda which is all fast food is bad. I pointed out that there were many variables he was not taking into account.

I also had to explain to Ed that we don't have agenda's like he does. (Further proof that he did not in fact review the material.). Now he is asking me to provide the science behind all of this claiming that he has reviewed all of the material, which he obviously has not. I have rounded up some of the scientific studies to help make our points. He has offered no actual proof that we will fail. And is all the while repeating that it is we who have not provided any proof.

You didn't really provide any evidence that McDonald's Hamburgers are unhealthy and I said I knew most of what he was talking about already. I don't refuse to accept basic information. I just know Ed's solutions are obviously flawed. I pointed out where he failed. And he quite intentionally is ignoring all of those faults.

Ed you have been projecting a lot into what you feel is going on here. Right along with the claim that all of our arguments were emotionally based when I have provided common sense and statistics for you to look at as well.

Is a big mac nutritious? I would say yes, because it contains protein, carbs, dairy, and some veggies.

Is a big mac balanced? Not really; it has a lot of sodium and fat for a single meal.

Is a big mac therefore unhealthy? We can't really answer this because there is no clear line between a healthy and unhealthy food. At least with "diets" we can go by the RDA metric. Maybe in common parlance we might say a big mac is unhealthy as shorthand for "don't eat more than 1 per day", but I'd say you can only really judge the entire diet as healthy or not.

Can we all agree on this and stop fighting over confusing and long-winded points now?

Wow what a s h i t load of crazy! How is it you can managed to write all that as a reason to avoid answering any of my questions and avoid backing up your claim that I "made up" data?

Ah well Bill, if you want to waste your time rambling like a madman go ahead.

I also gave you an example of a "model" that we use as an example of a McDonald's hamburger study that says the hamburgers are healthy

So here I will ask what model you gave and now you'll refuse to tell me. Around around we go!

Many people in this thread including myself have linked you to various scientific studies that backed up our claims.

Skeptoid is the only thing you have linked to. Disagree? Direct me to where these studies were posted. You won't because it never happened.

YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS PRESENTED BY PROFESSIONALS

I showed you peer reviewed studies and expert sources, you ignored them. You showed me no expert sources at all. I challenged you to post some and all you give me is excuses why you wont.

Yawn.

"If you repeat the lie often enough it becomes truth..."

hahaha! Classic CT line. You're turning into a great conspiracy theorist Bill, you should tell us more about your conspiracy theory. Why is it no pro-fastfood experts can get their papers published into journals? Oh wait.. you can't even find anyone relevant that agrees with you. oh well. :(

Thats funny Matt, because Bill is currently the one saying that he is... "*bang...head...on...keyboard*" ....and SHOUTING in all caps incomprehensibly

At a certain point you're a good troll Matt, Bill is just insane. :) I think you're feeding him in irc or something convincing him he's right. That's so mean of you to mock the afflicted!