[quote]roybot wrote:
BeefyBoy wrote:
roybot wrote:
BeefyBoy, you are a pretentious twat. 3% bodyfat for a man is potentially fatal. Women naturally carry more bodyfat than men. Do the math.
I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but just stating your opinion does not make it fact. Please back up your claims with some proof.
Um., how about you do some research?
[/quote]
I didn’t make the claim.
[quote]BeefyBoy wrote:
roybot wrote:
BeefyBoy wrote:
roybot wrote:
BeefyBoy, you are a pretentious twat. 3% bodyfat for a man is potentially fatal. Women naturally carry more bodyfat than men. Do the math.
I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but just stating your opinion does not make it fact. Please back up your claims with some proof.
Um., how about you do some research?
I didn’t make the claim.
[/quote]
You still maintain that it’s possible. Go and work it out for yourself, instead of expecting everybody else to do the work for you.
I’m content that I’ve clearly made my point. I have no desire to continue posting in this thread.
Please continue bashing and trashing me to feed your egos. You’re here to have fun and learn, and it’s clear I’m not appreciated here. I’ve overstayed my welcome as it is.
[quote]BeefyBoy wrote:
I’m content that I’ve clearly made my point. I have no desire to continue posting in this thread.
Please continue bashing and trashing me to feed your egos. You’re here to have fun and learn, and it’s clear I’m not appreciated here. I’ve overstayed my welcome as it is.[/quote]
I’m sorry that you feel that way, I hope you will one day realise that what you are asking is not possible. There are no hard feelings on my part Beefy, I understand were you are coming from and I often shout from the hills ‘were is the evidence’ at times myself. But it is just not applicable in this case.
What the fuck is it with you and scientific articles? We are not typing a fucking paper right now in college. There are certain things in life that are learned through experience and logic (i.e. knowing how to lift weights or knowing that a female figure athlete/BBer has not been 3% body fat), and it is usually the ignorant/retarded one asking for “scientific studies” for just about everything (this is you). These people should be ignored (also you, but it is making this thread interesting).
This thread has AIDS.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
This thread has AIDS.[/quote]
WHAT???
fuck:(
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I think it’s funny that everyone is getting so pissed at someone asking them to back up a claim. This conversation isn’t going to go anywhere because apparently no one has enough energy to try and find a scientific journal on the internet (except Beefyboy. I do recall seeing an actual reference on one of his posts). Sad. Maybe I’ll try when I get back from squatting.
Instead of doing actual work, all I see here are insults. Nice. Lazy bastards.[/quote]
He posted a reference on facts vs observation, what does that have to do with this thread?
If it was in anyway relevant I’d still tell him that source fucking sucks because it’s over 30 years old.
BeefyBoy has announced his departure from this thread, only to feel strongly enough to PM me this predictable pile of garbage:
"Did you even read the thread? Several times I stated that I don’t believe it to be possible for a woman to reach 3% body fat.
My point was that you can’t just make the claim without some proof.
Don’t bother responding… if you’re not willing to read the thread, I’m not willing to bother with your replies. "
So this idiot doesn’t believe it is possible for a woman to reach 3% bodyfat, but demands proof from other people to convince himself of what he already believes isn’t true?! WTF is the world coming to?
Hahaha that is fucking hilarious, good share roybo.
What is the world coming to when someone demands proof of something they “believe” to be true? Agnostics be damned!
[quote]debraD wrote:
.[/quote]
hahahahahahahahahaha…jesus god debra, I could lol for days.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
What is the world coming to when someone demands proof of something they “believe” to be true? Agnostics be damned![/quote]
I hope you’ve got a study to back that statement.
[quote]roybot wrote:
Oleena wrote:
What is the world coming to when someone demands proof of something they “believe” to be true? Agnostics be damned!
I hope you’ve got a study to back that statement.
[/quote]
The meaning of the first sentence was “If the act of demanding “proof” for something you believe or don’t believe to be true is damned, then agnostics are damned.” This was a retorical statement, as the definition of being agnostic is to be demanding of proof.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
The meaning of the first sentence was “If the act of demanding “proof” for something you believe or don’t believe to be true is damned, then agnostics are damned.” This was a retorical statement, as the definition of being agnostic is to be demanding of proof.[/i]
[/quote]
I understood perfectly what you were getting at.My point was that if other people on this thread can demand evidence for taking a dump, then why can’t I? Oh, and comparing Beefy Boy to an Agnostic is a bit of a stretch, seeing as how he already said that he didn’t believe what was said in your OP to be true. You - I mean - he even PMd me to say that.
And what you wrote still doesn’t offer proof that Agnostics are “damned”; where are all the studies of Agnostics burning in the fires of Hell? You shouldn’t make such rash statements without proof (see, I can be hopelessly nit picky as well - but congrats on being pedantic enough to squeeze Agnosticism into a thread about female body fat levels)…
It’s extremely odd that you were the one that made the initial claim, but Beefy Boy decides to put the burden of proof on everybody else but you. If people are going to use grown-up terms like ‘burden of proof’, they should at least know when to apply them properly.
What I find even more strange is that you were the one to start this thread, but he somehow ends up siding with you, and you with him - even though he doesn’t actually agree with you.
Scratch that last part. I already know the answer.
[quote]shaunar25 wrote:
debraD wrote:
.
hahahahahahahahahaha…jesus god debra, I could lol for days.
[/quote]
x2
Must have been tied to a piano leg as a child and left for days on end. Although some experts say that schizophrenic multiple personality disorders are genetic, and cannot be induced, I’d like to see some scientific studies to prove this point.
“When the going gets weird, the Weird turn pro.”
---H.S.T.
[quote]Yo Momma wrote:
shaunar25 wrote:
debraD wrote:
.
hahahahahahahahahaha…jesus god debra, I could lol for days.
x2
Must have been tied to a piano leg as a child and left for days on end. Although some experts say that schizophrenic multiple personality disorders are genetic, and cannot be induced, I’d like to see some scientific studies to prove this point.[/quote]
Just, seriously, the most random totally unexpected most hilarious reference I have ever seen in any thread. I am not even sure what is going on with all the other personality claims here on this thread, but if it calls for a Sybil reference, I’ll take it.
Calls for some laughing out loud for sure.
[quote]roybot wrote:
Oleena wrote:
The meaning of the first sentence was “If the act of demanding “proof” for something you believe or don’t believe to be true is damned, then agnostics are damned.” This was a retorical statement, as the definition of being agnostic is to be demanding of proof.[/i]
I understood perfectly what you were getting at.My point was that if other people on this thread can demand evidence for taking a dump, then why can’t I? Oh, and comparing Beefy Boy to an Agnostic is a bit of a stretch, seeing as how he already said that he didn’t believe what was said in your OP to be true. You - I mean - he even PMd me to say that.
And what you wrote still doesn’t offer proof that Agnostics are “damned”; where are all the studies of Agnostics burning in the fires of Hell? You shouldn’t make such rash statements without proof (see, I can be hopelessly nit picky as well - but congrats on being pedantic enough to squeeze Agnosticism into a thread about female body fat levels)…
It’s extremely odd that you were the one that made the initial claim, but Beefy Boy decides to put the burden of proof on everybody else but you. If people are going to use grown-up terms like ‘burden of proof’, they should at least know when to apply them properly.
What I find even more strange is that you were the one to start this thread, but he somehow ends up siding with you, and you with him - even though he doesn’t actually agree with you.
Scratch that last part. I already know the answer.
[/quote]
I think Beefyboy’s whole argument went right over everyone’s head, as did my use of the word agnostic. Agnostic isn’t just a religious term, it applies to everyone who refuses to fully commit to a belief until they see proof. This means that you could doubt something, but you don’t feel justified in making an outright statement until you see the facts. Ex:
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
The proof for my statement was this thread- where most people refused to back up their beliefs and hated on the person who called them out for it.
I did as much as I could in terms of finding proof that my statment of a girl being around 3.1% was valid. I posted links to articles about the accuracy of the test, posted pictures of the actual test, posted pictures of the girl. I’ve been looking for scientific findings on girls dropping down below 5% and haven’t found anything (I’m sure it has happened at some point with all the anorexic women out there).
So far all of the “proof” that a woman can’t drop down to 3% that I’ve seen has been direct quotes from bodybuilders stating what % they compete at- which really doesn’t prove anything because 1. We don’t have any actual test data on them 2. They say nothing about dropping down lower than the percentage they compete at.
I understand that it’s a bitch to have to back up a claim that seems obvious. I’m sure everyone who’s been ranting about the stupidity of backing up an obvious claim will continue to do so. It would be nice if at least one person found some solid proof of their idea and decided to post it here.
And lastly, Beefyboy really isn’t a character of mine. He’s just a random dude. Ask the mods for proof of that statement.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I think Beefyboy’s whole argument went right over everyone’s head, as did my use of the word agnostic. Agnostic isn’t just a religious term, it applies to everyone who refuses to fully commit to a belief until they see proof. This means that you could doubt something, but you don’t feel justified in making an outright statement until you see the facts. Ex:
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/AGNOSTIC[/quote]
I think my post went over your head. Read it again and you’ll see that I used both definitions of the term - hence why I pointed out that Beefy Boy wasn’t an agnostic because he’d already said he didn’t believe what you said was true. Why am I repeating myself?
[quote]
The proof for my statement was this thread- where most people refused to back up their beliefs and hated on the person who called them out for it.
I did as much as I could in terms of finding proof that my statment of a girl being around 3.1% was valid. I posted links to articles about the accuracy of the test, posted pictures of the actual test, posted pictures of the girl. I’ve been looking for scientific findings on girls dropping down below 5% and haven’t found anything (I’m sure it has happened at some point with all the anorexic women out there). [/quote]
Yeah, well we aren’t talking about anorexic women starving themselves down to that point. Slight cop out there. Don’t see many anorexics competing in figure these days. Maybe there’s a separate division I’m unaware of. I’m stunned you’ve even mentioned anorexics as a possible example of low bodyfat in women - and on a forum called Powerful Women, too…if you’re not a troll you do a great impression of one.
[quote]
So far all of the “proof” that a woman can’t drop down to 3% that I’ve seen has been direct quotes from bodybuilders stating what % they compete at- which really doesn’t prove anything because 1. We don’t have any actual test data on them 2. They say nothing about dropping down lower than the percentage they compete at.[/quote] Eh? Why would they drop down lower than competition level for anything?[quote]
I understand that it’s a bitch to have to back up a claim that seems obvious. I’m sure everyone who’s been ranting about the stupidity of backing up an obvious claim will continue to do so.[/quote] That’s because it’s not obvious… [quote] It would be nice if at least one person found some solid proof of their idea and decided to post it here.[/quote] It would be nice if you would stop trying to get everybody to disprove a claim that you made. Burden of proof, remember?
Oh, and if you want to talk proof why didn’t you post a pic of her holding a shoe? That would have put the whole debate to bed on the first page.[/quote]
[quote]
And lastly, Beefyboy really isn’t a character of mine. He’s just a random dude. Ask the mods for proof of that statement.[/quote]
Maybe I will. Even if they confirm each account is on a different IP address, it still doesn’t mean squat - you might just be crafty enough (and sad enough) to log on in different locations.
I stiil don’t believe you’re quite who you claim to be. I like the new avatar - you changed it about the same time imhungry noticed a similarity between you and your “co-worker”. But that’s just circumstantial, right?
Whatever, I’m done - even if by some miracle you find a non-anorexicfemale dropping to 3.1% bodyfat, it isn’t really gonna achieve much. And I’m not interested enough to care.