MacMadame

And atheism. I don't think it's clear that what animals do would fit the human definition of rape. Because we aren't dogs? :smile2: Why would we do things that help dogs survive if we aren't dogs and they don't help us survive? I guess I don't get this question.

I didn't answer the child rape and killing question because I thought was boring.... But I'll have a go. Killing is sometimes wrong and sometimes not depending on the circumstances. If you believe in self-defense, euthensia or eat meat, you agree with me. :smile2: Therefore, I can not answer why "killing is wrong" because the answer would takes hours of typing. Child rape is wrong for at least one reason -- because rape is wrong. Rape is wrong because it is violence for violence's sake. It's not violence that benefits the species. In the system we call life, one human being is not valued over another so one person's will should not be allowed to overcome another person's without their consent. Now, I know the next question will be "how do you know this?" This is how I know it: The universe is a system. (In fact, it's a system of systems.) All systems have algorithms which you may call rules or laws if you prefer. These rules govern the behavior of objects within the system. That includes human beings and it includes all our behavior, not just the physical -- such as taking in 3500 calories less than you expend will cause you to lose a pound -- but also how we treat each other. The way I see it, the main difference between an atheist and a theist is that a theist believes this system was constructed by something/someone, the Creator. If that is true, then the Creator designed the Rules Engine. An antheist, OTOH, doesn't believe the system has a Creator. But that doesn't mean the system doesn't have a Rules Engine. All systems have them.

Yes, he was: Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism

I think, unfortunately, the images of fat people in movies are more accurate than we realize. For example, the fat people always have bits of food on them when they eat and they gobble down their food. I would tell myself "fat people don't eat like that!" Except I do gobble down my food. Plus I always end up with crumbs on my chest and I carry around stain wipes because inevitably I end up with a dab of food on my shirt. So the pictures in the movies aren't 100% accurate -- they are an exaggeration for effect -- but it's an exaggeration of something you see in real life but we don't always notice about ourselves.

I tried to get private insurance 3 years ago when I got laid off and I was denied for being overweight. So was my husband even though his BMI is below 40 so he's only obese, not morbidly obese. It's going to be very hard to find private insurance that will take you, let alone pay for WLS.

There are really very few dietary restrictions. Some people want to be tight enough that they can't eat certain things but some people choose to be looser and can eat everything they ate before, just in smaller portions. That's the great thing about the band, it's adjustable so you can make your own choices about how you want to handle life as a banded person. So then ... he lied? Because studies show that bypass patients lose more weight at first but at the 3 year point, they have no more weight loss than banded patients on average. If his patients are doing better with bypass than with the band on average, I would blame his program, not the band.

You said Hitler. Therefore, I am calling in Godwin's Law ... which is that the first person to bring in Hitler loses the argument. :thumbup: Of course, I never made an argument for moral relativism. You are deciding what I think again and then explaining why what you've decided I believe is wrong. It's very hard to have a discussion when people do that. Anyway, it's fairly clear that everyone thinks that a) things have worth and most people (all?) think that :eek: not everything has equal worth. If you didn't think that not everything has equal worth, you would be a fruititarian, for example. (A fruititarian is someone who only eats the by-products of plants so that the actual plants don't die -- so only fruits and nuts.) I'm suspecting you aren't a fruititarian. In fact, I am guessing you eat meat. So apparently your life is worth more than a cow's in your moral code. Or, if you don't eat meat, more than a carrot's. As I said... everyone assigns relative worth to the things around them. What isn't clear is what the relative value of each thing is. Some people believe humans have more worth than some other things because God made them in his image. Other people might think that humans are worth the most because they are at the top of the food chain. I.e., they've earned their place. Still others don't think humans are worth the most. We don't really know which of these views is right and we can't really know. We make educated guesses based on our collective understanding of the world at the time. That understanding changes. So at one time we thought slavery was okay because slaves weren't worth as much as free people. Now we don't think that. That doesn't mean there isn't an absolute truth. It just means our understanding of it is relative. There doesn't have to be a God for there to be absolute truth. I know that 2+2 always equals 4, for example. This is an absolute truth. I believe there are other absolute truths, such as why you should do good or how much people are worth relative to animals, but we aren't capable of knowing them absolutely at this time (and maybe never). Let's put it this way, in the slavery example, we changed our mind about the relative value of certain groups of people compared to each other. But the truth didn't change. The relative value of people is what it is and whether we have a good understanding or a poor understanding of that doesn't change it. Just like if someone believes that 2+2=5 and manages to convince everyone else in the universe that this is true so that it even gets taught that way to school children, it doesn't make it true. I see in addition to not understanding my point of view, you don't understand Darwinism, either. But again, I never said there wasn't an objective truth. It isn't really. Darwinism is about survival of the species, not the individual. Altruism helps the species survive even though sometimes it's at the expense of the individual. Wow, what a lot of assumptions that don't logically follow. You are assuming that material wealth and comfort is the natural pick and that "toiling in anonymity" is foreign and so we need God to tell us to do that. I don't make that assumption at all. It seems to me that you think people are innately selfish (original sin?) and they need a Higher Power to force them to be good. I don't think people are innately selfish at all. I think they are programmed to be good, in fact. The reason they do bad things is that their programming gets screwed up.

You don't understand it at all. Or you wouldn't keep telling me that I must believe things that don't logically follow, even from your flawed premises of what you think I must believe. First of all, you seem to think only your God makes people have worth. I believe they have worth just because all things have worth. They don't have to be created by some supreme being to have worth. Secondly, you seem to think that altruism must come from believing in God as well. I actually took a class on altruism in college, back when I was a religion major, and studied the psychology of it. It appears that human beings are programmed to be altruistic. When they act that way, chemicals are released that make them feel good, among other things. They can be trained out of it, but the basic instinct is there and is often acted upon. If you believe that God created human beings, then He had to have done that. Therefore, God created a species that can't act selflessly because they are being altruistic because it's programmed into them and they get an inherent reward. At least, that is your logic -- that it's not true altruism because it's not selfless. I don't buy that, myself. I have seen people make great personal sacrifices to do the right thing and I don't think you can wave away that sacrifice just because it comes with some endorphins.

Well no matter what, I am NOT doing shakes. Except for the full liquid stage, of course, when it's shakes or starve. I think they are gross! Before I changed some of my eating habits, I was getting in an average of 60 g of Protein a day, which is slightly more than recommended for a woman my age, but it was often less than 20% of my calories because I ate so many carbs and often stuff made with white flour and sugar, or worse, high fructose corn syrup. I figure if I keep my protein content the same, but cut out the bad carbs and lower my calories, I should be okay. I think I can do that with the band, because I won't be hungry all the time. That's the theory, right? In the meantime, I'm supposed to lose 10% of my body weight in preparation for surgery. It's tempting to do the high protein diet for that since I know it will work and be relatively painless. Decisions. Decisions.

My immediate family knows including my mom and dh (d does not equal dear) told a bunch of people, which annoys me. I am just at the point where I know this is the right thing to do but I am also at a point in my life where I just don't feel like putting my energy into educating people or getting any flack. So I don't intend to tell anyone else until it's a done deal. I figure once it's done, no one can try to talk me out of it, which would annoy the crap out of me, and if they have negative thoughts, most people are too polite to actually repeat them to me when it's a done deal. If they do -- well, they are a tool so who cares what they think, right? But if people ask me how I lost the weight, I'm going to be honest. I don't have anything to be ashamed of and pretending I don't have a lap band just perpetuates the myths that obese people are that way because they are too lazy to change their lives and anyone can do lose weight and keep it off if they just put their mind to it. I hate that myth and I'm not going to do anything to keep it alive.

No, what is silly is your inability to see another POV.

Did the whole $2000 come out of pocket or will you get some back from insurance? Mr. Mac just had a piece of road debris cut a 3 inch slot into his passenger side door. It took almost a week and $2000 to get it fixed. Luckily our deductible is only $500, but I would have much rather had that $500 to spend on something else. We can't get it back from another driver either since it's no one's fault when scrap metal gets kicked up on the road. At least his rental car was nice, just like yours sounds. He drives a Ford Focus so the rental seemed VERY roomy by comparison.

The dietician I went to recommended I eat more Protein and said it would keep me full longer. I have been doing that and, as a result, my fat intake has increased too. Since I have no gallbladder to help break down fat in my diet, that means I get really farty. And that's just the short-term results. I have to decide if feeling less hungry is worth it and so far I am doubtful. I think I can get to that state just by drinking more Water. I would rather cut down on the refined carbs and simple sugars, but keep my protein intake the same. I think I'll be healthier overall.

I want to get banded that weekend, not go to a seminar. Though at the rate I'm going, I'll be lucky to be banded this year.

I hate to be pedantic (okay, I lie -- I love it ) but the First Amendment has nothing to do with posting on a message board. The first amendment just says Congress can't make any laws the abridge your right to free speech (or to establish a state religion). The more appropriate rule in this case is the one my 9 year old likes to invoke when her brother tells her what to do: you aren't the boss of me! :thumbup:

I enjoyed mine too. I like meeting new people and talking to them.

Actually, gastric bypass is almost always done laprascopically. It's only done open if the person has too much scar tissue or anatomical issues that prevent it being done laprascopically. But there are plenty of other reasons to go for lap band over bypass. Personally, giving the safety issues, I think US doctors should always recommend lap band first and only go for bypass if the patient has some particular reason why the advantages of bypass outweigh the added risks. An example would be if you have a medical condition that requires you to lose weight quickly or risk dying. Another would be if your psych eval showed you'd be a bad band candidate but a good bypass candidate. There are people for whom bypass is a better choice. But there are a lot of people for whom the lap band would work just as well and be less risky. Sounds like a win-win to me. :thumbup:

No, theists miss the point... Doing good in the world has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in God. First of all, all systems have behavior that benefits the system and behavior that does not. Humans are social animals who want to live together in packs. Therefore, they behave in ways that benefit the system. Those who don't get removed from the pack and that's a horrible fate for a social animal. Secondly, there are plenty of people who believe in God (or Gods) who don't do good in the world and there are plenty of atheists who do good in the world. Therefore, empirical evidence shows that a belief in God is not a requirement for being good.

This is what the food diary that my surgeon's gave me said: "Please be as honest as you possible can be. Our goal is to understand where you get your calories and what eating behaviors are important to you. In this way we hope to know which operation is likely to work best for you. We also hope to be able to recommend changes in your behavior, or education about your diet that will make the operation more successful. You will not be denied an operation based on poor eating habits, so there is no benefit to you to be anything less than completely honest as you fill out your food diary." I was really tempted to use 3 good days and be as good as possible during them when I first got my food diary, but reading this made me change my mind.

The person who told me this was a trend wasn't talking about WLS, just regular medical care. Honestly, I didn't believe her. But if a bariatric surgeon -- someone in a very cash-oriented field of surgery -- isn't accepting non-insured patients, it makes me wonder. I think the US health system is such a mess. Nothing about it surprises me any more.

I have been told that some doctors aren't taking patients without insurance any more -- that it was some sort of trend in the industry -- but this is the first time I've heard about it happen to a real person. It's kind of scary if this is a trend.

Dr. Foster is in my network now, but I have an exclusion on my policy and may change insurance in Aug 1. She's not in the network for the new place. It's very annoying.

Your liver shrinks if you lose weight. You lost weight, so you should be fine.

I prefer the caramel flavor to the chocolate. They do taste like real caramels. Yes, they are only 20 calories, but I'm trying to cut refined sugar out of my life and it all adds up.

I tend to only have enough clothes to get through laundry day and only in whatever size I am. I am always kind of amazed when people talk about digging something out of the closet that they used to wear and having it fit. My stuff wears out too fast since it's always getting washed. This is what comes of hating to go clothes shopping and only being able to shop in the fat lady department, I guess. :tt1: