Katie Hopkins

[weltweit]

Fair enough. Problem is that this kind of argument is often reduced to 'either a or b'. Fuckwits like Hopkins make their living reducing arguments to this. But the correct counter to her argument for 'a not b' is not to argue 'b not a'. Why people like her are invited onto Radio 4, I do not know.

I was a bit surprised to hear her on there myself. Perhaps her reach is expanding which isn't a good thing.

 

[kabbes]

Except that I don't recall making an absolute claim, I recall asking a question which was pretty much "nature or nurture!"

You said this:

For example, I know a couple, both of whom are overweight. They have two children, both of whom are overweight. Are the children overweight because their parents are over feeding them? or because of their genetics?

Equally I am sure we all know families where both parents are slim as are their offspring.

 

[Sweet FA]

Says the penis who won't let it drop.

I've already said I'd take Lynn's word for it.... move on and do something more productive with your day please.

 

[weltweit]

You said this:

Yes, a question kabbes, just as I said : "Are the children overweight because their parents are over feeding them? or because of their genetics?"

 

[kabbes]

Yes, a question kabbes, just as I said : "Are the children overweight because their parents are over feeding them? or because of their genetics?"

The question is utterly meaningless though. It is a non-sequitur. Asking the same question without referring to the weight of the parents would have been no different.

You were implying that the weight of the parents might tell you something either way. But it doesn't.

 

[sim667]

Still trying

 

[weltweit]

.. You were implying that the weight of the parents might tell you something either way. But it doesn't.

So despite your protestations you are saying genetics don't apply.

 

[kabbes]

So despite your protestations you are saying genetics don't apply.

Am I? How so?

What protestations, anyway?

 

[weltweit]

Am I? How so?

You dismissed my proposition that overweight parents might either through nature or nurture have something to do with their kids being overweight, by stating that the fact the parents were overweight made no difference. Whereas to my questions on nature (genetics) or nurture that fact was important.

What protestations, anyway?

Your protestations that you were not the one making a point rather it was me!

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Try this for a longitudinal study that looks at the possible interaction of genes and behaviors with regard to obesity: Quebec Family Study

The notion of a genetically determined metabolism which explains weight, doesn't really hold up; while it is a factor it is only one amongst many, including other genetic indicators around things such as appetite and exercise.

And of course all the genetic factors in the world don't explain the increase in obesity seen in certain western countries in the last half century; the social, economic and cultural environments in which we live have dramatically altered changing both the incidence of obesity and its meanings.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[kabbes]

You dismissed my proposition that overweight parents might either through nature or nurture have something to do with their kids being overweight, by stating that the fact the parents were overweight made no difference. Whereas to my questions on nature (genetics) or nurture that fact was important.


Your protestations that you were not the one making a point rather it was me!

You really don't understand conceptually the point here.

 

[Pickman's model]

You really don't understand conceptually the point here.

are there other ways to understand?

 

[killer b]

Attributing weight gain to social rather than genetic causes isn't blaming people for their own ill-health: the social factors that contribute to how we eat are incredibly powerful, and incredibly difficult to combat - but to be able to combat them, it is necessary to be able to correctly identify what they are.

Saying some people are just bigger than others, because genetics is a banal cop out, as well as being pretty dodgy science. While there may be a genetic aspect, it's the last thing that should be considered, when the actual causes of the modern rise in obesity is so obvious and well documented.

 

[Shechemite]

Obe thing that fucks me off about a lot of media comment on obesity/smoking/addiction etc is it sets up the choice as a) people's problems are down to things beyond their control (genes for example) or b) they are useless, lazy, selfish etc and we should be horrible to them.

Trying to explain to my mum that me, other family members, doctors etc saying that smoking is bad for her triggers off loads of 'don't judge me' etc. When nothing to do with judging, just trying to support to make healthy choices.

A kinder society would make it a lot easier for people to take on board feedback about self destructive behaviours. Being cunts isn't helpful.

Someone being overweight doesn't have to be down to their genes in order not to be a dick to such a person. Who came up with this notion that the two states in life are victim or bastard.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Obe thing that fucks me off about a lot of media comment on obesity/smoking/addiction etc is it sets up the choice as a) people's problems are down to things beyond their control (genes for example) or b) they are useless, lazy, selfish etc and we should be horrible to them..

Thatcher's children, innit? Either it's beyond anyone's control or it's the individual's fault. There is no such thing as society, so how can it bear any of the blame?

 

[weltweit]

 

[fishfinger]

Such a shame

 

[existentialist]

littlebabyjesus are you saying you don't think genetics are such a large issue? Because my thinking is that they are probably massive.

For example, I know a couple, both of whom are overweight. They have two children, both of whom are overweight. Are the children overweight because their parents are over feeding them? or because of their genetics?

Equally I am sure we all know families where both parents are slim as are their offspring.

You simply cannot use a one-case anecdote to make an argument for genetic influence, weltweit - that's laughable.

 

[existentialist]

are there other ways to understand?

In the circumstances...

 

[sim667]

Katie Hopkins to host LBC radio show

Some idiots given this cunt her own radio show.

 

[ruffneck23]

I'm not surprised this is the station that has Nick Ferrari

 

[Sasaferrato]

Recently on some daft TV prog Hopkins was rude to some fat people. One of them stormed off in high dudgeon to phone the police in the belief that Hopkins had committed a "hate crime". This is where we have got to: people believe that comments they find offensive are criminal.

Thanks to the SNP, in Scotland, they may well be.

 

[Sasaferrato]

The sad thing is that she is one of the most interesting comedians in Britain

She could get much more response than someone like Stewart Lee and all she does is say stupid things with a straight face. Gutted for you posh liberals who think the world revolves around your half baked opinions, hers are more important and she is a moron on purpose, but well done on the degree and the slr camera for shots of coffee cups and empty buildings. I care

I fear I'm entering my dotage. I cannot make any sense of this post at all, can someone elucidate? Or does no one else understand it either. It's like cutting a page of print in two, then putting it back together a couple of lines out of alignment.

 

[Sasaferrato]

less this, more katie hopkins in the show i was talking about

but just imagine... cannot watch cbeebies already without feeling the need to do drugs

It's not that bad. I watch occasionally whilst looking after next door's children. I quite like Peppa Pig. (Or is that on one of the other teenies TV channels?). I'll be glad when they graduate to the real hardcore stuff like 'Road Runner'.

 

[Gromit]

I'm not surprised this is the station that has Nick Ferrari

Nick Ferrari is the perfect talk radio host in my opinion. His job is to get people talking and he will often play devil's advocate to make the discussion interesting.
Never assume that the viewpoint he is arguing is actually his. His job is to provide entertainment and thats all he's doing. If arguing that the sky is pink when it is obviously blue provides entertainment then as part of his job thats what he'll do.
I've heard him argue one side one month and then a couple of months later argue the other side.

Katie Hopkins on the other hand is just pure troll. She will choose topics and sides to deliberately upset the majority of reasonable people. I'm rather disappointed in LBC in resorting to such base cheap methods.

 

[Libertad]

Nick Ferrari is the perfect talk radio host in my opinion.

Nicky Campbell is the master.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Jon Ronson did a piece on her in the Guardian or Observer (can't remember) and I think he ended up feeling quite sorry for her. I'll try and find it.

Here we are, she's a very strange woman.
Katie Hopkins: ‘I definitely identify with that murderer thing, where you click off’

That is an interesting article.

 

[ruffneck23]

I didn't realise she went through major brain surgery recently , and I'm not that callous to think she deserved it but maybe it's been a factor towards her vileness , I had a friend who from that sort of stuff totally changed his personality , il listen to her show once and shall see..

As for Ferrari , the amount of times I used to argue with him on my way to work ( in my head ) I think I've just got a hatred from him , but you're right he does get a reaction

 

[Nylock]

The surgery changed fuck-all, she was back to her vile trolling as soon as the anaesthesia wore off and she could get online....

 

[Anudder Oik]

She went all out mouth-frothing rabid to champion the nazis who gatecrashed the floral tribute in Brussels. Disgusting.