>>14258668> If you want to make distinctions, then the only one that's necessary is this one: either they're fat from overeating, or they're fat because of their genetics. The percentage of the latter varies depending on the groups studiedI simply stated that not every case of obesity can be clearly defined as "food addiction". I'm not even sure what you're going on about at this point, other than it being profoundly retarded and not worth discussing in detail past what I've already stated in the context of this conversation.
>So you just wasted time saying something obvious?Yes, it's called having a conversation. It's a process where two or more individuals exchange ideas. Sometimes those individuals will agree, sometimes they won't. Sometimes it's worth it to espouse simple concepts and statements in order to ensure to the other party that there is no strong misunderstandings regarding what are viewed as fundamental points of the conversation
This is very basic and very few people require this to be explained to
>Over half of the people in USA play video games, yet USA in its entirety is "too broad of a population group"? Yes, it's far broader than the population groups I'm proposing. I'm essentially discussing population groups where upwards of 90% would identify with that term. Even that might be somewhat broad considering I'm comparing to people who would identity as "food eaters", which is effectively 100% of the population
>Let me guess, the specific population that's adequate is the one which almost entirely consists out of addicts?No, that would be the equivalent of making the statement that everyone on the planet is food addicted. I'm simply referring to a population sub group that consists of people who regularly and enthusiastically partake in the playing and appreciation of video-games
As it happens, many if not most people are able to moderate their time when it comes to these things to the point where it would not be definable as an addictiom
