GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Meat by modern standards could be conceded junk (leaving out other ideas of *evolution (like not kill\slav\*ing*),) do you know how much a human body breaks down and utilizes,,, some more than others like aquaponics? Keep in mind anything non-fact is opinion plus doctors only practice.
Quote:
__________________
Don't do things that kill you.
--John Bytheway
Too late for all.
Last edited by jamison20000e; 08-24-2017 at 07:23 AM.
... if your saying that most people would not consider pizza, burgers, etc as being junk food, like most people I know (and I know a LOT of people), I could not agree with you.
Read what I wrote, not what you want to see.
Quote:
... so get your facts right.
Says the person who does not know what junk food is.
Quote:
More to the point, if you don't agree with Wikipedia's 'definition' of junk food, why are you replying to this thread for??? ...are you looking for an argument??
That should be obvious. I wanted to point out the flaws of the poll.
Wait. There is the real problem. You are angry because somene dared to point out the flaws in your thread.
Quote:
Why not just ignore this thread, if you don't agree with the definition???
So your thread/poll is not open to everyone. Just those who agree with you.
Do not worry. You have your wish. Since this is not a discussion thread, but simply a childish expectation that everyone will ignore facts, recognise your brilliance and agree with whatever you write, I am out of this thread. I was hoping for intelligent discourse, but that is obviously not going to happen.
Quote:
BTW, I think you need to turn on your spell checker, I've counted at least 4 (if not 5) spelling errors.
Quote:
jsbjsb001
I could not careless what you think about Wikipedia, or whether or not, you agree with their definition.
Could not careless? The attempt to prove your intellectual superiority failed miserably.
I could not careless what you think about Wikipedia, or whether or not, you agree with their definition.
<gammer nazi on>
I believe that your usage of the word "careless" was in error in the above sentence. You probably mean to use two words "care less" in the place of "careless". Arguably, both were involved but only one correct.
<grammer nazi off>
Perhaps a definition of "junk food" would have made the thread less likely to devolve into silly disagreements about definitions. The term "junk food" is not well defined, but I would suggest we accept ONE of the definitions published by a single nutrition site and settle.
I consider Pizza "junk food", but excellent "junk food" and not naturally bad for you unless made so by use of ingredients that, in amount, nature, or combination, are unhealthy (see American Pizza referenced above).
Personally, I have to consider anything make with refined sugar, milled flour, white rice, or white potato junk food as they are unhealthy for me. I find heavy and processed fats suspect, because I have problem maintaining weight if I ingest many, but I am not sure at what level I would call that "junk food". Despite that I would not project MY definition onto others, and I suggest that if you are projecting your definitions onto others you are acting like an egotistical jerk.
We do not have people here who are egotistical jerks naturally, so please stop and think before you get rude and act like one. We can all be friends and agree on some subjects while we disagree on others and still all be right.
Teachers* hate Wikipedia like Bill Gates may Linux?...
Not all teachers - used carefully (ie "DON'T accept it blindly, check it in a dead tree book in the library!") it's too useful if for no other reason than introducing students to the jargon (then they know what to look up in books (in theory)).
Distribution: Currently: OpenMandriva. Previously: openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 3,881
Original Poster
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpeckham
<gammer nazi on>
I believe that your usage of the word "careless" was in error in the above sentence. You probably mean to use two words "care less" in the place of "careless". Arguably, both were involved but only one correct.
<grammer nazi off>
Perhaps a definition of "junk food" would have made the thread less likely to devolve into silly disagreements about definitions. The term "junk food" is not well defined, but I would suggest we accept ONE of the definitions published by a single nutrition site and settle. ...
Well, OK, there is no space between 'care' and 'less', but both words are still spelt correctly.
But nevertheless, I agree in terms of your point about the definition, as this is EXACTLY why I used the one from, Wikipedia. In the hopes that we could avoid 'silly disagreements' (as most members have done, including yourself) and I thank all members that have been kind enough to do that.
Not all teachers - used carefully (ie "DON'T accept it blindly, check it in a dead tree book in the library!") it's too useful if for no other reason than introducing students to the jargon (then they know what to look up in books (in theory)).
The most important things we teach are about how to THINK, not just facts. Having multiple sources that disagree is invaluable when you want to teach students how to cross check, verify, and determine the reliability of a source or reference.
But. This is somewhat off topic. Sorry, former teacher here.
Books are as much opinions with\without facts and can evolve eg volume 1, 2, 3 or so on like any other ideas... not that most libraries like Wikipedia don't have some books that are all facts?
Wpeckham truth on!
The average 4.0 student is more a tool than smart if you ask we‽
I recall high school chemistry pointing to corporate labeling of some "junk food$:" zer0 trans fats turns over to reveal partially hydrogenated oils in the ingredients... quite a sucker punch!
Knowledge is nothing without power, grow your own(.)
Distribution: Currently: OpenMandriva. Previously: openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 3,881
Original Poster
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpeckham
...Despite that I would not project MY definition onto others, and I suggest that if you are projecting your definitions onto others you are acting like an egotistical jerk.
We do not have people here who are egotistical jerks naturally, so please stop and think before you get rude and act like one. We can all be friends and agree on some subjects while we disagree on others and still all be right.
wpeckham,
It's NOT my definition, it's Wikipedia's definition, I'm not trying to be rude OR egotistical. And while you may well have been speaking in general (and that's fine, have NO problems with that), I don't think it's fair to be suggesting, that I was intending to be, let alone being egotistical.
The only times I have even replied to this thread, has been in response to yourself and Randicus Draco Albus, and the ONLY reason was to defend myself (which given the topic, I have to be honest in saying, is pretty poor on a certain other members part).
I have not offered ANY opinion about weather the Wikipedia article on "junk food" is right, wrong or indifferent. And will NOT be debating that ether, now if yourself or other members wish to debate, then GO FOR IT!!!
I would also like to say while were here, I find the vast majority of your posts very informative and insightful.
The most important things we teach are about how to THINK, not just facts. Having multiple sources that disagree is invaluable when you want to teach students how to cross check, verify, and determine the reliability of a source or reference.
Thorughly agree, former teacher here, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpeckham
But. This is somewhat off topic. Sorry, former teacher here.
Given the discussion that's developing about what is or isn't junk food, probably not that far off .
refined sugar, milled flour, white rice, or white potato
and rightfully so with so many agreeing (speaking of what our bodies process, glue much(?),) maybe you struck a bone in the pizza, Randicus Draco Albus, are you overweight?
Wpeckham's definitions get pretty broad withand rightfully so with so many agreeing (speaking of what our bodies process, glue much(?),) maybe you struck a bone in the pizza, Randicus Draco Albus, are you overweight?
To be clear, my definition is for ME ALONE! Because my body does not process triglycerides at the rate that 99.994% of the population processes triglycerides, it behoves me to avoid foods that raise the blood triglyceride levels quickly.
But that was part of my point: for reasons medical, cultural, political, and economic the definition of "junk food" can be different for each different person. It is a very silly thing to argue about, because we can all disagree with each other and still all be correct!
Distribution: Currently: OpenMandriva. Previously: openSUSE, PCLinuxOS, CentOS, among others over the years.
Posts: 3,881
Original Poster
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wpeckham
To be clear, my definition is for ME ALONE! Because my body does not process triglycerides at the rate that 99.994% of the population processes triglycerides, it behoves me to avoid foods that raise the blood triglyceride levels quickly.
But that was part of my point: for reasons medical, cultural, political, and economic the definition of "junk food" can be different for each different person. It is a very silly thing to argue about, because we can all disagree with each other and still all be correct!. ...
AGREE!! Thank you, it IS a VERY silly thing to argue about, which is why I will NOT be debating, what is or isn't "junk food"!!!
Thank you.
PS: I meant what I said in my last post, I DO find a LOT of your posts to be very informative and insightful!
A few years ago i started junk food like burger ,pizza.I like so much to eat junk food.But now i have been facing stomach problem as well as heart problem.SO i would like suggest all my members be aware .
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.