1) I asked you a clear, logical question about the proportion of people regaining weight due to biological mechanisms versus those whose weight gain is more driven by poor diet and physical inactivity (as shown by the statistics from the CDC and USDA). I provided data to suggest that behavior and environment play a significant role in weight gain.
Instead of addressing my core argument about the behavioral and environmental contributors to weight regain (which are clearly significant based on US health statistics), you sidestepped the question entirely, focusing instead on the emotional argument of "willpower" and implying that weight regain is solely or overwhelmingly biologically driven.
2) I recognized your point that biological mechanisms play a role but I also brought behavioral and environmental factors to the discussion. I even said that in some cases, long-term medication like tirz may be necessary if nothing else works, but it shouldn’t be the first or only solution. My argument was balanced and accounted for both biological and behavioral factors, while you created a straw man by implying that I ignored biological mechanisms entirely and relied solely on willpower.
3) "Once again, I ask, if appetite is the same level for everyone, and it's not possible for it to be dysfunctional, why are there so many struggling to eat the calories they need to achieve their goals?"
Nowhere in my original post did I say that appetite is "the same for everyone" or that it’s impossible for appetite to be dysfunctional. This is a misrepresentation of my argument. I even acknowledged that hormones like leptin, ghrelin, and insulin impact appetite regulation, which means that I recognize that appetite can be significantly different among people. I never said that appetite isn't a challenge for some or that biological appetite dysregulation doesn't exist. This is a classic straw man fallacy, where you try to attack an argument the other person didn't make.
4) "Why do 'appetite-increasing' drugs suddenly allow them to eat, when they say it was physically impossible to eat before? If appetite can have such a profound effect on them why do you knuckle draggers think it can't be just as potent in the opposite direction?"
Here you shift into name calling and insults, like “knuckle draggers” and implying that people who don't agree with you are ignorant/backward. You try to distance yourself from the actual conversation while not providing any valid counter argument to my points. You try dismiss my view on the subject through condescension, rather than engaging in a respectable debate.
5) "Beyond this, there is ample evidence of many health benefits to these compounds, beyond weight loss, reducing chronic disease and extending lifespan."
There is research showing potential benefits GLP 1 agonists in reducing chronic diseases and extending lifespan, but what about the risks? There are side effects, like gastrointestinal issues, and the long term effects of staying on them are still being studied as we speak. My argument was that people should try other methods first like diet and exercise, and only permanently going on these medications if necessary. What you did is overstating the benefits while ignoring my argument that these drugs should not be the automatic, "first line" solution for obese/overweight people.
You misrepresented my argument, ignored any evidence, resorted to insults, and using logical fallacies to avoid addressing any points I made about the balance between biological and behavioral factors in weight management.
It's obvious that you can't even handle a real conversation, let alone engage with the actual points being made instead of deflecting with childish emotional outbursts and weak arguments.
