"The World Factbook gives the population as 7,095,217,980 (July 2013 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 31.50% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 23.20% (of which Sunni 75-90%, Shia 10-20%, Ahmadi 1%), Hindu 13.8%, Buddhist 6.77%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.22%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01% (2010 est.)"
So that is well over 80% of the world who have some form of religious beliefs. Not "Many People who thinks its beyond ridicilous"
Your paragraph is so beyond offensive it baffled the mind. So because you think religion is ridicilous its okay to insult it. Those are peoples beliefs, ahve you not on the forum defended when people have criticized Hopkins beliefs?
I have absolutely no respect for someone who can make such a narrow minded statement, its not fine to insult anyones beliefs. >:(>:(>:(>:(>:(
Rabid, I don't think anything we say will make a difference to the OP. I'm not a religious person at all but totally respect those who are. To do otherwise would make me ignorant to other peoples feelings and that seems to be Katie Hopkins forte.
No I didn't. It pretty much equates to the same thing imo. I wouldn't even hazard to assume what I think people may or may not think. Nor do most people need someone to think what they might think.
It clearly doesn't equate to the same thing!
You're saying it does because you realize you've made a mistake in accusing me of saying something which I never even said.
And yes, as i've said before, I stand by what I feel in the original post and obviously nobody is going to come on here and say "you know what, you're right".
That's how I feel tho, that's my opinion. I don't think I need to put that it's just my opinion in huge bold lettering every time.
Im not overweight. .I don't have children with geographical names and I don't rely on the state , I work..so I am not in Katy Hopkins firing line however I detested her long before any of the above comments.
I first saw her on the apprentice and just thought what a rude, ,ruthless woman she was. .One thing nadia said that was true. .anyone can say hurtful tjings, ,it takes far more skill to get the message across in a polite way.
I don't like perez and he would annoy the hell out of me but Katie h is an out and out bully. .she is disgusting.
It clearly doesn't equate to the same thing!
You're saying it does because you realize you've made a mistake in accusing me of saying something which I never even said.
And yes, as i've said before, I stand by what I feel in the original post and obviously nobody is going to come on here and say "you know what, you're right".
That's how I feel tho, that's my opinion. I don't think I need to put that it's just my opinion in huge bold lettering every time.
Again you are attempting to read minds. No mistake and nor am I accusing. But to imply that you think what people are thinking is an awful broad statement to make, with no basis or evidence to back it up. Of course no-one is going to say "you're right" cos you're not.
Did you miss the 'I still think' bit at the start of that sentence??!
And what difference does that make exactly? Making an assumption on why others feel the way they do, and then adding "I think" at the start or a question mark at the end changes nothing about the fact that you're disregarding everything said by the very people who's minds you believe you know better than they do and saying "Actually, no, you really dislike her because ______". The use of "I think" in that sentence doesn't make it any less of a ridiculous and ignorant assumption.
People have detailed their issues with Hopkins numerous times on here. If you take it upon yourself to ignore most of that and claim to know "the real reason" why they feel a certain way ("real" suggesting people are lying when they explain why they dislike her), don't expect nobody do take you to task on it.
How about "I'm sure many will disagree and obviously some flat out just won't admit to this being the main reason for the dislike of Katie H."? Once again, an unfounded assumption where you utterly disregard what people actually say and decide that their true opinion must be what you say it is.
So, no, they didn't miss a thing. How about you like her for whatever reasons you do and deal with the fact that those who dislike her have their own reasons for doing so?
Im not overweight. .I don't have children with geographical names and I don't rely on the state , I work..so I am not in Katy Hopkins firing line however I detested her long before any of the above comments.
I first saw her on the apprentice and just thought what a rude, ,ruthless woman she was. .One thing nadia said that was true. .anyone can say hurtful tjings, ,it takes far more skill to get the message across in a polite way.
I don't like perez and he would annoy the hell out of me but Katie h is an out and out bully. .she is disgusting.
Well that clearly isn't true when she's clearly shown emotion in the house and got upset and angry over the treatment of others.
But then you'll just say she's putting it on or something so it's impossible to have a rational discussion about this.
Unfortunately, you seem to be right. Some seem determined to see her as less than human.
I never said the majority or 'almost all' people find it ridiculous did I?
I said many people do. You can't provide stats when they're not even relevant to what I said, it doesn't further your point.
The last poll I saw said only 38% of Britains believe in God. Anyway, it's not even relevant to my point.
I think absolutely everything should be open for criticism.
If you think something if ridiculous or wrong or hateful and you disagree with it, then you should be able to say exactly what you feel.
Even tho I think many of the comments in this thread are wrong and often not truthful, I don't have a problem with people saying them, just as I have no problem with people attacking my views. Unfortunately someone, like yourself, will play the 'oh i've never read anything so offensive in my life' card, which does your arguments no favors.
First of all that may genuinely be the dumbest thing I have ever read on here, you don't know the first thing about me or what "card I play" so don't try to pretend you do to suit your own judgements.
Ive dealt with more than my own fair share of judgements so please in a nice way dont ever make that assumption about me.
Its irrelivant if only 38% of Brits believe in god, which I don't think by the way. Were talking about a global scale. You said a lot of people...Im simply pointing out with facts that it is not a lot of people. So its 100% relevent to the point that you raised but it just doesn't support your statement.
I believe there is a huge difference between insulting someones clothes for example and insulting their beliefs. One is a material product where as beliefs can be one of the focal points of a persons life.
Rabid, I don't think anything we say will make a difference to the OP. I'm not a religious person at all but totally respect those who are. To do otherwise would make me ignorant to other peoples feelings and that seems to be Katie Hopkins forte.
Thank you for a very logical reasonable reply
I am personally religious. Raised that way as a child and became born again as an adult. I accept other people don't have religious beliefs and that's fine im not insulting their beliefs. I am just not commenting on people who have different religious or non religious beliefs.
It clearly doesn't equate to the same thing!
You're saying it does because you realize you've made a mistake in accusing me of saying something which I never even said.
And yes, as i've said before, I stand by what I feel in the original post and obviously nobody is going to come on here and say "you know what, you're right".
That's how I feel tho, that's my opinion. I don't think I need to put that it's just my opinion in huge bold lettering every time.
So if you think everyone has a right to their opinion.however disgusting it is why did you bring up an earlier post with the posters name to show it up
Again you are attempting to read minds. No mistake and nor am I accusing. But to imply that you think what people are thinking is an awful broad statement to make, with no basis or evidence to back it up. Of course no-one is going to say "you're right" cos you're not.
Do you never have an opinion about what people think? Such opinions are very common in discussions of the sorts we have in this forum, and you would be very busy indeed if you objected to them all. Even in this thread, we have such things as a statement that Katie has an "inability to feel empathy". That's a much more objectionable sort of mind-reading, it seems to me.
On the drink in a girlie bar in Cambodia and the general consensus is that she is a torn face hag not worth a chunt, I would try to write it in khamer but she's not worth the ink or the inclination.
Do you never have an opinion about what people think? Such opinions are very common in discussions of the sorts we have in this forum, and you would be very busy indeed if you objected to them all. Even in this thread, we have such things as a statement that Katie has an "inability to feel empathy". That's a much more objectionable sort of mind-reading, it seems to me.
No. Why should I? People are more than capable of forming their own thoughts without me or anyone else having to assume what they think on their behalf. I wouldn't be so patronising!
Please tell me where I said I was speaking for everyone else and that just because I said it, it makes it so??
I clearly stated it was my opinion, just as what you've just posted is your opinion.
Obviously because it's my opinion I think I am right, just as everyone else does with their opinions.
I don't see what's hard to understand.
So you are saying that it is your opinion that people who dislike Hopkins do so just because she made some negative comments about fat people, and therefore since it is your opinion, you are right. There is no other reason why people would dislike Hopkins.
Just because 'you think' something, doesn't make it right.
If it was my opinion that everyone who disliked Manchester United disliked them because they don't like the Glazers and I think my opinion is right, doesn't make it so. There are many reasons why people would dislike united.
The issue with your opinion is that you have assumed you know the motive behind every single persons dislike of Hopkins, and since it is your opinion and it is right, you are unwilling to accept the opinions of the people you have made the assumption about.
I disliked Katie Hopkins on before Celeb BB but I really like her as a housemate
I think Nadia started her dislike of Katie H as a way of gaining popularity but then when she realised it wasn't working she gave up but the damage was done and she just dislikes her for the sake of hating on her
So if you think everyone has a right to their opinion.however disgusting it is why did you bring up an earlier post with the posters name to show it up
What's that got to do with having a right to opinion?
I didn't say they should be banned over it.
This is such a good, compassionate post. Thanks so much for taking the time to write it. I totally agree about some people's weight issues. My sister has thyroid issues and over the years before she was diagnosed, she gradually got heavier and heavier until she became obese, yet she always ate like a bird - she'd make good meals for her children and just nibble at things herself. The fatigue she used to experience before the diagnosis was overwhelming.
It is actually very difficult to get a diagnosis, the blood tests often come back negative but by a very small margin...
Another issue is medication, especially anti depressants, they can cause weight gain which is tough to get rid of, no matter what happens..
While her 'strong opinions' regarding overweight people are objectionable they're pretty low down on the list of objectionable things she spouts from her ignorance, lack of empathy and spite.
Bottom line is she enjoys hurting, humiliating and dividing as it gives her pleasure and makes her feel 'strong'. In order to do that she must demonstrate, by her own standards, that someone else is 'weak'.
No. Why should I? People are more than capable of forming their own thoughts without me or anyone else having to assume what they think on their behalf. I wouldn't be so patronising!
Having an opinion about what people think is not "having to assume what they think on their behalf." It's not saying or assuming that they aren't "capable of forming their own thoughts".
Has there ever been a subject where people so utterly ignorant of the facts were willing to bellow their ignorance to all and sundry?
KH has contributed literally nothing except further ignorance and rudeness to a debate that is already at saturation point in every paper and on every tv channel. Her programme was by far the worst and most discreditable of all the series on the subject that filled every tv channel after christmas.
No one who knows anything about the issue would dream of using a phrase like "a rare case with some kind of medical condition". (What 'medical conditions' were you thinking of, one wonders?) It is obvious from world statistics that when people have access to plenty of food, the majority of people are powerfully programmed to eat more than they need to. Genetics determines whether they will stay slim, get fat, or get very fat. It is absolutely risible to suggest that it only requires 'a bit of effort' to stay slim, for people programmed not to be slim.
Why do you object so strongly to Matt_Maher mentioning medical conditions but not to bbcrzy's post (#29) about medical conditions?
And how on earth do you get from "world statistics" to anything about people being "powerfully programmed"? Stats relating access to plenty of food to weight cannot show anything of the sort. You seem to be taking a rather extreme genetic determinist view, as if people were "powerfully programmed" in ways that prevent them from making conscious decisions about diet and exercise and then acting on them. I think that's a very questionable path to go down.
I have to wonder about those statistics too, since it seems there were times when people had access to plenty of food without so much of the population being as overweight as they now are in countries like the UK.
Ironically, the only thing KH's worthless fat gain/ loss experiment showed - and she must realize this, not being stupid - is how very difficult it is for a naturally slim person to get fat, and how powerfully your body is programmed to revert to its normal weight once you start eating normally. She had to FORCE her weight up, with a dietician to help her to do it, since eating 6,500 calories a day is a ghastly experience for almost all of us. As soon as she stopped eating this stupendous quanitity of food, of course her body snapped back to its natural, very slim, shape.
Since her body didn't "snap back" without a change in diet (and perhaps in exercise as well), how does it show that the change is really down to this mysterious "programming"? It looks rather like it was due to eating an awful lot less.
I'm not sure quite what you mean by a body's "normal weight" or "eating normally", but how is it interestingly different from saying that if someone changes their weight by changing their diet, they will go back to their old weight if the go back to their old diet? Or do you think instead that the "normal weight" is determined by genetics? (You switch to "natural weight" in the next paragraph. That sounds more like something that might be genetically determined.)
For obvious reasons she did not pursue this thought, since it would rather have scuppered the whole thing. She clearly had no interest in the facts of obesity anyway, any more than the OP or her other admirers have. She just wanted an excuse for fat-hating, and sadly there is plenty of fertile ground there.
Obesity is generally caused by consuming more calories – particularly those in fatty and sugary foods – than you burn off through physical activity. The excess energy is then stored by the body as fat.
Obesity is an increasingly common problem, because many modern lifestyles often promote eating excessive amounts of cheap, high-calorie food and spending a lot of time sitting at desks, on sofas or in cars.
There are also some underlying health conditions that can occasionally contribute to weight gain, such as an underactive thyroid gland (hypothyroidism), although conditions such as this don’t usually cause weight problems if they are effectively controlled with medication
That looks a lot closer to what Matt_Maher was saying than it does to what you said in that post.
That page has a Read more about the causes of obesity where it says re genetics:
Genetics
Some people claim there is no point in trying to lose weight because "it runs in my family" or "it's in my genes".
While there are some rare genetic conditions that can cause obesity, such as Prader-Willi syndrome, there is no reason why most people cannot lose weight.
It may be true that certain genetic traits inherited from your parents – such as having a large appetite – may make losing weight more difficult, but it certainly doesn't make it impossible.
In many cases, obesity is more to do with environmental factors, such as poor eating habits learned during childhood.
That too looks a lot closer to what Matt_Maher was saying than it does to what you said.
And it says nothing about being "powerfully programmed" or a "normal" or "natural" weight that a body "snaps back to" because "Genetics determines whether they will stay slim, get fat, or get very fat."
Well, I'm not overweight, and I dislike the woman.
I am however Northern, female, and have quite a mixed bag in my family tree, most of whom KH probably thinks are dirty scummy rodents.
Having an opinion about what people think is not "having to assume what they think on their behalf." It's not saying or assuming that they aren't "capable of forming their own thoughts".
When someone states that they think the only reason most people likes/dislikes a housemate because of _________ then yes. That is going beyond one's singular opinion and making a huge assumption on what we think irregardless of what we actually do think and all evidence to the contrary.
Please tell me where I said I was speaking for everyone else and that just because I said it, it makes it so??
I clearly stated it was my opinion, just as what you've just posted is your opinion.
Obviously because it's my opinion I think I am right, just as everyone else does with their opinions.
I don't see what's hard to understand.
So you are saying that it is your opinion that people who dislike Hopkins do so just because she made some negative comments about fat people, and therefore since it is your opinion, you are right. There is no other reason why people would dislike Hopkins.
Just because 'you think' something, doesn't make it right.
If it was my opinion that everyone who disliked Manchester United disliked them because they don't like the Glazers and I think my opinion is right, doesn't make it so. There are many reasons why people would dislike united.
The issue with your opinion is that you have assumed you know the motive behind every single persons dislike of Hopkins, and since it is your opinion and it is right, you are unwilling to accept the opinions of the people you have made the assumption about.
No, the post is not saying that thinking it's right makes it right or even that it necessarily is right. Note that it says "I think I am right" and not "I know I'm right" or "I must be right" or or anything else along such lines.
I find the idea that people express opinions that even they don't think are right very odd. Why should we take what someone says seriously if even they don't believe what they're saying?
I instantly took a dislike to KH when I saw her on the morning shows voicing her snobbish and bullying opinions. When I heard that she was to be appearing on Big Brother I guessed she would be ruffling a few feathers but to be honest she, to me, isn't nearly as bad as one or two of the other HMs.
IMHO I think she enjoys stirring things as it gets her so much attention, which she craves, but I also think that she isn't afraid to voice what a lot of us, very deep down, would love to say but would never, ever, admit to.
The main example I can think of was her opinions of children's names. I'm going to hide under my username now and admit that I wholeheartedly agree with her. Call me a snob if you like but when I hear the names Egan, Ethan, Kayleigh, Skyla, Jordyn, Chelsea, Paris, London and in fact any name beginning with 'K' which seems to have been turned into a jumble of letters from Countdown. OK, so I'm a snob but I'm also tactful as to whom I voice my opinions to!
Isn't there a quote that goes along the lines of 'the only true thing that separates human from animal is empathy'? If there isn't, there should be.
I don't know about a quote, but it's one of the central ideas -- although about what separates humans from androids or replicants -- in Phlip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? which became the film Bladerunner. It's what the Voigt-Kampff test is about.
Comments
Rabid, I don't think anything we say will make a difference to the OP. I'm not a religious person at all but totally respect those who are. To do otherwise would make me ignorant to other peoples feelings and that seems to be Katie Hopkins forte.
It clearly doesn't equate to the same thing!
You're saying it does because you realize you've made a mistake in accusing me of saying something which I never even said.
And yes, as i've said before, I stand by what I feel in the original post and obviously nobody is going to come on here and say "you know what, you're right".
That's how I feel tho, that's my opinion. I don't think I need to put that it's just my opinion in huge bold lettering every time.
I first saw her on the apprentice and just thought what a rude, ,ruthless woman she was. .One thing nadia said that was true. .anyone can say hurtful tjings, ,it takes far more skill to get the message across in a polite way.
I don't like perez and he would annoy the hell out of me but Katie h is an out and out bully. .she is disgusting.
Again you are attempting to read minds. No mistake and nor am I accusing. But to imply that you think what people are thinking is an awful broad statement to make, with no basis or evidence to back it up. Of course no-one is going to say "you're right" cos you're not.
And what difference does that make exactly? Making an assumption on why others feel the way they do, and then adding "I think" at the start or a question mark at the end changes nothing about the fact that you're disregarding everything said by the very people who's minds you believe you know better than they do and saying "Actually, no, you really dislike her because ______". The use of "I think" in that sentence doesn't make it any less of a ridiculous and ignorant assumption.
People have detailed their issues with Hopkins numerous times on here. If you take it upon yourself to ignore most of that and claim to know "the real reason" why they feel a certain way ("real" suggesting people are lying when they explain why they dislike her), don't expect nobody do take you to task on it.
How about "I'm sure many will disagree and obviously some flat out just won't admit to this being the main reason for the dislike of Katie H."? Once again, an unfounded assumption where you utterly disregard what people actually say and decide that their true opinion must be what you say it is.
So, no, they didn't miss a thing. How about you like her for whatever reasons you do and deal with the fact that those who dislike her have their own reasons for doing so?
Exactly.
http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/sir-alans-blast-to-disgraced-apprentice-katie-hopkins-youre-unemployable-7265235.html
Then she was removed from her met office job for bringing them into disrepute.
How could anyone realistically employ this obnoxious adolescent?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUnRVUcoONk
Unfortunately, you seem to be right. Some seem determined to see her as less than human.
First of all that may genuinely be the dumbest thing I have ever read on here, you don't know the first thing about me or what "card I play" so don't try to pretend you do to suit your own judgements.
Ive dealt with more than my own fair share of judgements so please in a nice way dont ever make that assumption about me.
Its irrelivant if only 38% of Brits believe in god, which I don't think by the way. Were talking about a global scale. You said a lot of people...Im simply pointing out with facts that it is not a lot of people. So its 100% relevent to the point that you raised but it just doesn't support your statement.
I believe there is a huge difference between insulting someones clothes for example and insulting their beliefs. One is a material product where as beliefs can be one of the focal points of a persons life.
Thank you for a very logical reasonable reply
I am personally religious. Raised that way as a child and became born again as an adult. I accept other people don't have religious beliefs and that's fine im not insulting their beliefs. I am just not commenting on people who have different religious or non religious beliefs.
So if you think everyone has a right to their opinion.however disgusting it is why did you bring up an earlier post with the posters name to show it up
Do you never have an opinion about what people think? Such opinions are very common in discussions of the sorts we have in this forum, and you would be very busy indeed if you objected to them all. Even in this thread, we have such things as a statement that Katie has an "inability to feel empathy". That's a much more objectionable sort of mind-reading, it seems to me.
No. Why should I? People are more than capable of forming their own thoughts without me or anyone else having to assume what they think on their behalf. I wouldn't be so patronising!
So you are saying that it is your opinion that people who dislike Hopkins do so just because she made some negative comments about fat people, and therefore since it is your opinion, you are right. There is no other reason why people would dislike Hopkins.
Just because 'you think' something, doesn't make it right.
If it was my opinion that everyone who disliked Manchester United disliked them because they don't like the Glazers and I think my opinion is right, doesn't make it so. There are many reasons why people would dislike united.
The issue with your opinion is that you have assumed you know the motive behind every single persons dislike of Hopkins, and since it is your opinion and it is right, you are unwilling to accept the opinions of the people you have made the assumption about.
I think Nadia started her dislike of Katie H as a way of gaining popularity but then when she realised it wasn't working she gave up but the damage was done and she just dislikes her for the sake of hating on her
What's that got to do with having a right to opinion?
I didn't say they should be banned over it.
It is actually very difficult to get a diagnosis, the blood tests often come back negative but by a very small margin...
Another issue is medication, especially anti depressants, they can cause weight gain which is tough to get rid of, no matter what happens..
Bottom line is she enjoys hurting, humiliating and dividing as it gives her pleasure and makes her feel 'strong'. In order to do that she must demonstrate, by her own standards, that someone else is 'weak'.
Having an opinion about what people think is not "having to assume what they think on their behalf." It's not saying or assuming that they aren't "capable of forming their own thoughts".
Why do you object so strongly to Matt_Maher mentioning medical conditions but not to bbcrzy's post (#29) about medical conditions?
And how on earth do you get from "world statistics" to anything about people being "powerfully programmed"?
I have to wonder about those statistics too, since it seems there were times when people had access to plenty of food without so much of the population being as overweight as they now are in countries like the UK.
Since her body didn't "snap back" without a change in diet (and perhaps in exercise as well), how does it show that the change is really down to this mysterious "programming"? It looks rather like it was due to eating an awful lot less.
I'm not sure quite what you mean by a body's "normal weight" or "eating normally", but how is it interestingly different from saying that if someone changes their weight by changing their diet, they will go back to their old weight if the go back to their old diet? Or do you think instead that the "normal weight" is determined by genetics? (You switch to "natural weight" in the next paragraph. That sounds more like something that might be genetically determined.)
Where are we supposed to get these "facts"?
According to NHS Choices:
That looks a lot closer to what Matt_Maher was saying than it does to what you said in that post.
That page has a Read more about the causes of obesity where it says re genetics:
That too looks a lot closer to what Matt_Maher was saying than it does to what you said.
And it says nothing about being "powerfully programmed" or a "normal" or "natural" weight that a body "snaps back to" because "Genetics determines whether they will stay slim, get fat, or get very fat."
I am however Northern, female, and have quite a mixed bag in my family tree, most of whom KH probably thinks are dirty scummy rodents.
When someone states that they think the only reason most people likes/dislikes a housemate because of _________ then yes. That is going beyond one's singular opinion and making a huge assumption on what we think irregardless of what we actually do think and all evidence to the contrary.
Isn't there a quote that goes along the lines of 'the only true thing that separates human from animal is empathy'? If there isn't, there should be.
No, the post is not saying that thinking it's right makes it right or even that it necessarily is right. Note that it says "I think I am right" and not "I know I'm right" or "I must be right" or or anything else along such lines.
I find the idea that people express opinions that even they don't think are right very odd. Why should we take what someone says seriously if even they don't believe what they're saying?
IMHO I think she enjoys stirring things as it gets her so much attention, which she craves, but I also think that she isn't afraid to voice what a lot of us, very deep down, would love to say but would never, ever, admit to.
The main example I can think of was her opinions of children's names. I'm going to hide under my username now and admit that I wholeheartedly agree with her. Call me a snob if you like but when I hear the names Egan, Ethan, Kayleigh, Skyla, Jordyn, Chelsea, Paris, London and in fact any name beginning with 'K' which seems to have been turned into a jumble of letters from Countdown. OK, so I'm a snob but I'm also tactful as to whom I voice my opinions to!
I don't know about a quote, but it's one of the central ideas -- although about what separates humans from androids or replicants -- in Phlip K. Dick's novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? which became the film Bladerunner. It's what the Voigt-Kampff test is about.