Geez… What’d you do, buy your local hardware store’s entire stock of whitewash for that comment?

Quote by the OP, emphasis mine: “Your body probably will go full panic mode and store back as much as possible as soon as you starts [sic] to eat normally again. I’d advice agains [sic] doing anything so violent, and just lower your food intake to a bit under normal.”

After which you attack the OP for violating the laws of physics. The OP didn’t attack CICO, promote bunk science, or deny climate. Neither am I.

You’ve got the personality of dog shit and an equivalent reading comprehension. Quit gaslighting.

No, we’re not discussing CICO. We’re discussing your inability to recognize that the OP used the phrase “eating normally” to describe dieters returning to their normal eating habits (ie, how they ate prior to dieting), and your resulting attack on the OP.

Normal for them, not your normal. Nobody asked you for your personal definition of normal. Again, reading comprehension. Get some.

You really need to work on that reading comprehension. Valmond stated that people will regain weight when they return to eating normally after dieting.

You claim that’s not how physics work, then move the goal posts stating “if people only eat what they need, they won’t gain the weight back.” Well no shit Sherlock, but they’re not eating normally. They’re gaining the weight back if they go back to eating normally.

Quit being so quick to attack folk and read the fucking post.

Most people don’t count calories. You said it yourself, a few posts below. Are you going to start redefining “normal” now to meet your argument?

Did you miss the “when you start eating normally again” bit?

You can rant all you want about the laws of physics, but you might want to practice your reading comprehension.

How are my morals wrong? What natural law are you basing your truth on?

If our morals are not the same, what grants you the right to impose yours on others, but prevents others from imposing theirs upon you?

So, you would have no problem with me imposing limits upon your choices based upon my morals, then?

Who’s judging the moral debasement? Why do you feel the need to save people from themselves?

What right do you have to interfere in some else’s life and choices they make for themselves?

Why are you so concerned with what other people are choosing to do with their bodies?

I’d argue there’s nothing wrong with trucks, either. Some folk have a legitimate use for them: fitting construction material and lumber in the back; towing a trailer.

The problem is two fold, I figure: we’ve got a bunch of folk driving trucks (and SUVs) around that never have a legitimate use for them other than a status symbol. Then there’s the folk that have a partial need for them, but can’t afford to keep multiple vehicles around, so they’re stuck driving the truck they need a fraction of the time.

I’m in the latter category. If i could reliably rent a truck to haul/tow with, I’d replace my family’s Tacoma with a sedan, and save a bunch of money in the process.

Pastor is in Ohio.Hears reports of people dying in Milwaukee. Pastor offers shelter to people in Ohio. Pastor is charged.

I’m not advocating for violence. I’d prefer seeing the Texas National Guard stand down and the Border Patrol rescuing the drowning people.

Other folk have other opinions, apparently.

So you’re fine with people dying, as long as they’re migrants.

While a woman and two children drown? With all due respect, you can shove that court case right up Abbott’s ass.

Some of us Americans can separate entertaining fiction from horrific reality.

Don’t put words in my mouth.

Israeli says three deaths of their hostages is a tragedy, while thousands of Gaza civilians dying is “tremendously positive.”

I’m pointing out their rampant hypocrisy and blatant disregard for their fellow man… If you believe the same, you’re just as morally and ethically bankrupt.

Three Israeli hostages get killed by IDF forces, that’s a tragedy. Two civilians in Gaza get killed by IDF forces for every Hamas fighter killed? “Regrettable but tremendously positive.”

Having no Hamas present never protected the West Bank from Israeli.

Hamas, the Israeli government, and the IDF are all murderers.

It reveals their character. Kill a few hostages by mistake? That’s a tragedy. Kill two civilians in Gaza per Hamas fighter? Regrettable, but “tremendously positive.”

Hamas, the Israeli government, and the IDF are three sides of the same die: murderers with no respect for their fellow human.