Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

1. You seem really ready to believe the worst interpretation of what people say to you. That's got to make things difficult.
2. You're usually the confident poster who can dish it out as well as take it, and instead of some sarcastic burn you resort to impersonal threats of violence? It hurts me to see you that delicate.

Comes with regularly dealing with the worst specimens. And that's not me making a threat of violence. I'll just laugh when people do this (spoiler- people don't ever do this), but there are less restrained people than me. I'd rather not go to jail for assault, but I know people who probably aren't too concerned and putting someone in jail doesn't put your teeth back in. Food for thought.

"Delicate" is making a feeble excuse to not take care of oneself. Me? I'm just stating reality, something that a few people seem to have... avoided.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It would be much, much easier if everyone were physically healthy, yes. Some of us weren't born with that option. Psychologically, too.
Morally? It think it's pretty dangerous for any one class of people to claim sole moral authority. In fact, I consider it a moral failing. America is a melting pot, and we wouldn't have half so great a country if every person thought and believed the same way.
Legally? I know some people who served who may not have been strictly legal...

"Morally fit" doesn't mean what you think it means- it means you're not a supporter of terrorist or extremist groups, or enemies of the country.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Yes, yes. I had a similar story. I had to learn how to cook in college and am still teaching my parents. Like, they can make soup now.

However, my wife's circle of friends has a lot of ...damaged people in it. Abuse can strip initiative away from the survivors. Instead of becoming fired up for self reliance and self-defense, some people shut down or retreat into more sheltered forms of living. You can't expect everyone to have the same confidence or initiative as you do, and punishing other people for needing help is not an answer that leads anywhere we want to go as a society, or so I hope. There are a lot of people out there who cannot, for one reason or another, lift themselves by their bootstraps.

There are a lot of people out there who look at their scars and say "I'm crippled". There's a difference between offering your hand to pull someone up out of the dirt and and offering your hand and coddling them through life without letting them learn to function like an adult. You can be nice if you want. You can demand or plead that I be nice. Whether we do or not is irrelevant, because Mr. Real World is going to be an unrepentant jerk to them and we can't always be there to save someone. Sometimes, these people have to accept that being a victim doesn't mean you have to be helpless.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Besides, you have a high opinion of yourself. You clearly feel superior to the average person. So, then, why do you demand they all meet your personal accomplishment standards to qualify as deserving empathy or respect when you acknowledge your personal achievements are beyond the possible for the average person? Is everyone beneath you in the capabilities you value unworthy? Should everyone at Adeptus Doritos-minus-one in life just die of debt poisoning?

I don't feel superior to the average person. I am certain of my superiority to people who make excuses to be lazy and wait for a handout, a pity-party, or someone to take care of them instead of manifesting some sense of maturity and initiative and making some attempt to take care of themselves. My superiority over these individuals isn't a personal opinion, it is an objective fact.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I believe you've talked about your charitable giving before. If you feel so much contempt for the needy, why do you give?

I give to needy children. Children get a pass, because they haven't had their shake at it yet. I don't have anything for a grown adult that's basically exploiting the goodwill of other human beings. I loathe it, and I don't pity them, and I don't accept "poor me" excuses as a blank check for stupidity. I've seriously watched a woman take the charitable donations of christmas gifts for her children, and then turn around and sell them for... well, if it was drugs at least that'd be something, she just squandered it and the kids ended up with nothing. Needless to say, this individual didn't work (I mean, had no job and was making no attempt to remedy that. I at least give credit for trying to improve). Why should I ever, EVER feel sympathy for this person? If it were just her, and she were starving- I'd do nothing.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Exceptional? Have you been in a classroom in a "bad" school? Like, half the damn kids are fethed up. Four or five in every class would spend their entire time just staring down at their desks, never talking, never drawing, never doing anything. A lot of kids are taught early on by their parents or bad teachers never to ask questions or attempt to better themselves or show initiative. And some start out with promise but get fethed over by the experience, by drugs or school violence or the apathy of everyone around them. It's apparently pretty easy to break a lot of kid's will to learn.

You know what motivates a lot of people to learn how to make their own food? Hunger.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think it was Elbows who addressed this earlier, but there really are parts of the country where healthy food is scarce or too expensive to consume regularly. And again, it all depends on your perspective and experience. My wife grew up in such an area, where most of the food her family could buy was in a can or a box. Sometimes the church would hand out fresh food..and sometimes they would buy from a truck that sold stuff that fell off other trucks (I never knew that was a real thing before I met her). When they finally got a discount foodmart type place near them, they had no idea how to shop for fresh veggies or fruits or handle raw food safely, and her parents never did cotton to eating some fruits that didn't come out of a can. The older kids grew up with an idea of what food was that left them ill adapted to cooking healthy meals. My wife learned how to cook healthy meals, but some of her older siblings didn't or wouldn't. They all have debilitating health issues these days that cost the taxpayer more than an extra class or two on how to live right ever would have.

You keep saying "Healthy Food" like it's this special thing that you have to find. Do you know what healthy food is?

Stuff that isn't fried. Stuff that isn't junk food. You can eat pretty normal things and be healthy, you know. You won't be a sexy beach body stud, but you'll be overall healthy in terms of diet.

So unless they're locked in Mr. Wonka's factory...

 Easy E wrote:


So just use Google to learn, but you should feel bad for getting a devise to access Google?

I think we can all easily see your bad faith argument..... thanks for highlighting it so clearly!

Cheers!

The Library is free.

And I said for "work, education, and survival", so that's a cute attempt but I'm gonna have to send you back to your little scheming board to come up with a better "HAHA GOTCHA!". I can tell you worked really hard on it, it makes me sad to do this to you.

Jesus Christ, "objective superiority" based on your own assumptions about what is desirable or not. This just keeps getting better and better.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I want to emphasize that while not the majority this is the level of reasoning applied to problems in the US at a not-insignificant frequency. Many voters think this way and naturally elect representatives who then put such 'logic' into practice. It creates a cultural and institutional blame of people for suffering problems that aren't their fault simply because there is a -theoretical- way to fix them. It's like taking a person with no mechanic experience, putting them in a garage with a broken car, piles of parts & tools that may or may not be relevant to fixing it, then blaming them for not knowing that they had to dig up a charging cable to plug in the laptop on the other side of the room so they could guess the password then log into google and learn how to fix the car.

If you think making relatively decent, non-junk food in the kitchen is comparable to working on an internal combustion engine, then I might be convinced you've never actually prepared food in your life.

The kind of person you're trying to hypothetically present to me is, objectively, an idiot that belongs in a group home for special needs. Not the average adult- and if there is an adult who isn't mentally handicapped having these problems, let me be clear: The misery they endure is well-deserved. Consider it motivation to spur some improvements in life.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Jesus Christ, "objective superiority" based on your own assumptions about what is desirable or not. This just keeps getting better and better.

Reality hurts.

Do you actually look at the local idiot- the guy that refuses to help himself, makes excuses, and expects everyone to take care of him and say, "Yeah, he's just as good as I am!" Because, I don't know, I might have an issue seeing myself as having equal value to someone like that. It's a rough case of "self respect".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Jesus Christ, "objective superiority" based on your own assumptions about what is desirable or not. This just keeps getting better and better.

Reality hurts.

Reality does not mean what you think it means.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Reality does not mean what you think it means.

I'm familiar enough to make a better assessment than some, it would seem.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Reality does not mean what you think it means.

I'm familiar enough to make a better assessment than some, it would seem.

Nah. Reality hurts.





See how much of a non-argument that is?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Nah. Reality hurts.

Am I to understand that paper-thin, weak excuses for incompetence merit anything other than a scoff of dismissal? Come to me with an actual point to argue, and I'll manifest something better than a non-argument for a non-problem.


Here's the million dollar question- do these sad excuses... have you ever, you know, voiced them to someone? Like, let's just say... a single woman you were trying to get to know? A parent? An employer? Just curious, I want to know the reactions. (EDIT: Not you, obviously. You're from Sweden, they have infinite Swedish Fish).

The point is that there is no such thing as objectively superior morality, because morality hinges on inherently arbitrary decisions about what is morally desirable. I completely agree with you that it is desirable for people to be able to pull themselves together and overcome obstacles. A diehard Darwinist might argue that people who struggle with various problems deserve to die because they make the gene pool weaker (which would itself be a gross misunderstanding of natural selection, but for argument's sake). The only way to claim that something is inherently better than something else from a moral point of view is to either ignore or be ignorant of the fact that one's own moral choices are arbitrary.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The point is that there is no such thing as objectively superior morality, because morality hinges on inherently arbitrary decisions about what is morally desirable. I completely agree with you that it is desirable for people to be able to pull themselves together and overcome obstacles. A diehard Darwinist might argue that people who struggle with various problems deserve to die because they make the gene pool weaker (which would itself be a gross misunderstanding of natural selection, but for argument's sake). The only way to claim that something is inherently better than something else from a moral point of view is to either ignore or be ignorant of the fact that one's own moral choices are arbitrary.

Let's put it this way: I'll count superiority in terms of "useful to society". I'll quantify it with work hours, taxes, etc. Again, I don't count people who are at least trying to improve their lives. I don't count people who have some serious physical or mental handicap.

But, I believe that it's entirely reasonable to point out the difference between "Can't Do it" and "Won't Do it", and the lazy ones that just won't do it... are objectively less useful to society, and therefore, inferior to literally any human being that's at least trying.

In other words, I respect the hell out of the obese dude that's going to the gym, even if he's struggling- nothing but contempt for the potbellied guy that's watching Netflix and making excuses about not having the time to work out.

 Easy E wrote:


So just use Google to learn, but you should feel bad for getting a devise to access Google?

I think we can all easily see your bad faith argument..... thanks for highlighting it so clearly!

Cheers!

The Library is free.

And I said for "work, education, and survival", so that's a cute attempt but I'm gonna have to send you back to your little scheming board to come up with a better "HAHA GOTCHA!". I can tell you worked really hard on it, it makes me sad to do this to you.

Where is the public kitchen in the library? How about the free printer? Also, who funds libraries?


On a more serious note, I completely agree that a hand up out of the dirt is very different than a hand-out.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The point is that there is no such thing as objectively superior morality, because morality hinges on inherently arbitrary decisions about what is morally desirable. I completely agree with you that it is desirable for people to be able to pull themselves together and overcome obstacles. A diehard Darwinist might argue that people who struggle with various problems deserve to die because they make the gene pool weaker (which would itself be a gross misunderstanding of natural selection, but for argument's sake). The only way to claim that something is inherently better than something else from a moral point of view is to either ignore or be ignorant of the fact that one's own moral choices are arbitrary.

Let's put it this way: I'll count superiority in terms of "useful to society". I'll quantify it with work hours, taxes, etc. Again, I don't count people who are at least trying to improve their lives. I don't count people who have some serious physical or mental handicap.

But, I believe that it's entirely reasonable to point out the difference between "Can't Do it" and "Won't Do it", and the lazy ones that just won't do it... are objectively less useful to society, and therefore, inferior to literally any human being that's at least trying.

In other words, I respect the hell out of the obese dude that's going to the gym, even if he's struggling- nothing but contempt for the potbellied guy that's watching Netflix and making excuses about not having the time to work out.

That attitude is grossly hillarious and delegitimizes all valid concerns in regards to minimal standards applicable by shifiting the blame on individuals of the weaker side by completely hinging any issue on them.
It speaks cooperations and governements completely free of any and all criticism levied against them and makes for a rather naive belief in elites.

And sure, you can argue that the lazy fat feth in his cellar eating only junkfood is only his issue alone and in no shape or form are others responsible for him....
Except that is not true or only half the picture, considering the nature of the fastfood industry for exemple,which relies on a system of addiction via sugger and fat and synthezised taste carriers.

And yes responsibility is something and of course the those that atleast tried to change are "more valuable"(if you even want to quantify people that way, and excuse me but that makes my skin crawl) but trying doesn't mean succeding and why there even developped an issue like addiction to fat f.e. is on a whole other side now is it.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The point is that there is no such thing as objectively superior morality, because morality hinges on inherently arbitrary decisions about what is morally desirable. I completely agree with you that it is desirable for people to be able to pull themselves together and overcome obstacles. A diehard Darwinist might argue that people who struggle with various problems deserve to die because they make the gene pool weaker (which would itself be a gross misunderstanding of natural selection, but for argument's sake). The only way to claim that something is inherently better than something else from a moral point of view is to either ignore or be ignorant of the fact that one's own moral choices are arbitrary.

Let's put it this way: I'll count superiority in terms of "useful to society". I'll quantify it with work hours, taxes, etc. Again, I don't count people who are at least trying to improve their lives. I don't count people who have some serious physical or mental handicap.

But, I believe that it's entirely reasonable to point out the difference between "Can't Do it" and "Won't Do it", and the lazy ones that just won't do it... are objectively less useful to society, and therefore, inferior to literally any human being that's at least trying.

In other words, I respect the hell out of the obese dude that's going to the gym, even if he's struggling- nothing but contempt for the potbellied guy that's watching Netflix and making excuses about not having the time to work out.

But there's a world of difference between "objectively superior [for society]" and "objectively superior". One still presupposes the importance of being useful for society while the other does not.

 H wrote:
Why does it have to be all of one thing or the other?

Why can't it partly be personal responsibility and partly systemic issues? Sure, it's hard to know just how much of any particular it is one or the other, but that doesn't mean it must be only one or the other.

Think about about, let's say we find out, definitively that it's 99% characterological and 1% systemic. Even in that case, why should be allow that systemically 1%? Is it that we should have a "litmus test" so the 99% can "feel better" about not falling into the systemic trap? If so, why not just legalize heroin or crack, or whatever, then we, who don't take it, can point at those who do and feel much better about our the fortitude of willpower vs. those degenerates? Sounds good for the "beautiful souls" but why, exactly, is that something that should be allowed?

Think about this as well, lets say some food company finds a way to make a drug that is literally more addictive than heroin or cocaine. It's is tasteless and so on. It doesn't get you high, but it does make you want more of it. So, it would just make you want to eat more of the food that it is in.

If such a thing were to exist, should it be allowed? Why or why not? You can say, "no such thing could or would exist!" but that is besides the point. We are addressing the philosophical point, about what should or should not be "allowed" (morally/ethically) in food.

To spice it, let us further consider just say the further case where this stuff, whatever it is, makes food "taste better" and has some long-term, negative health effect as well. Should it be allowed?

In other words, how much should we be delarcing that people need to battle systemic forces with their personal responsibility vs. not allowing systemically harmful things to exist at all?

It’s called sugar. And in tests run with rats addicted to cocaine, they chose sugar over the cocaine.
It exists. And it’s ubiquitous. And it’s in everything.
And it should be treated the same as alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs, and any other regulated substance.

 Ghool wrote:

 H wrote:
Why does it have to be all of one thing or the other?

Why can't it partly be personal responsibility and partly systemic issues? Sure, it's hard to know just how much of any particular it is one or the other, but that doesn't mean it must be only one or the other.

Think about about, let's say we find out, definitively that it's 99% characterological and 1% systemic. Even in that case, why should be allow that systemically 1%? Is it that we should have a "litmus test" so the 99% can "feel better" about not falling into the systemic trap? If so, why not just legalize heroin or crack, or whatever, then we, who don't take it, can point at those who do and feel much better about our the fortitude of willpower vs. those degenerates? Sounds good for the "beautiful souls" but why, exactly, is that something that should be allowed?

Think about this as well, lets say some food company finds a way to make a drug that is literally more addictive than heroin or cocaine. It's is tasteless and so on. It doesn't get you high, but it does make you want more of it. So, it would just make you want to eat more of the food that it is in.

If such a thing were to exist, should it be allowed? Why or why not? You can say, "no such thing could or would exist!" but that is besides the point. We are addressing the philosophical point, about what should or should not be "allowed" (morally/ethically) in food.

To spice it, let us further consider just say the further case where this stuff, whatever it is, makes food "taste better" and has some long-term, negative health effect as well. Should it be allowed?

In other words, how much should we be delarcing that people need to battle systemic forces with their personal responsibility vs. not allowing systemically harmful things to exist at all?

It’s called sugar. And in tests run with rats addicted to cocaine, they chose sugar over the cocaine.
It exists. And it’s ubiquitous. And it’s in everything.
And it should be treated the same as alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs, and any other regulated substance.

Dosis makes the poison.
I doubt banning suguar would solve the issue,but eliminating corn siroop, or implementing limits on refined suguar would go a long way.

Not Online!!! wrote:And yes responsibility is something and of course the those that atleast tried to change are "more valuable"(if you even want to quantify people that way, and excuse me but that makes my skin crawl) but trying doesn't mean succeding and why there even developped an issue like addiction to fat f.e. is on a whole other side now is it.

Just a warning, you won't get anywhere though, if the notion that the value of human life is the precisely it's economic productivity, well, you see where the absolute Utilitarianism comes in? There is no value of human life, it's a value of economic productivity and unproductive things are literally worthless. Actually, less than worthless, they are wasteful.

That's why, once realizing I was trying to discuss with someone who unabashedly proclaims to be a strict Utilitarian, I checked myself out.

Ghool wrote:It’s called sugar. And in tests run with rats addicted to cocaine, they chose sugar over the cocaine.
It exists. And it’s ubiquitous. And it’s in everything.
And it should be treated the same as alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs, and any other regulated substance.

I know, I was just drawing an allegory to illustrate the point. You are preaching to the choir with me, unfortunately.

 H wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:And yes responsibility is something and of course the those that atleast tried to change are "more valuable"(if you even want to quantify people that way, and excuse me but that makes my skin crawl) but trying doesn't mean succeding and why there even developped an issue like addiction to fat f.e. is on a whole other side now is it.

Just a warning, you won't get anywhere though, if the notion that the value of human life is the precisely it's economic productivity, well, you see where the absolute Utilitarianism comes in? There is no value of human life, it's a value of economic productivity and unproductive things are literally worthless. Actually, less than worthless, they are wasteful.

That's why, once realizing I was trying to discuss with someone who unabashedly proclaims to be a strict Utilitarian, I checked myself out.

He isn't though,considering he himself values those that try at equal position as the valuable ones, which would get completely dosregarded if he were a strict utilitarian, due to them not succeding in the first place.

 Ghool wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
When your diet is not restricted by what is available but by what you can afford, 'good' dietary practices tend to fall by the wayside. And this goes double if you don't have the time to cook fresh for yourself because you're working multiple jobs.

Eating prepared meals, either from the supermarket or fast food chains is not in any way more affordable.
Nor is it any quicker. When it takes 24 minutes (just waiting) for me to get our family an order from McD’s and 35 bucks, it costs twice as much as a healthy home made meal. And a home cooked meal only takes 10 minutes more.

Food conglomerates and fast food chains have you fooled into thinking it’s cheaper and easier to eat out or eat prepared meals.
When it takes me 30 minutes to make a meal, and it costs less than 20 dollars with leftovers to take for lunch the next day, that’s not huge amount of time nor money. I feed my family of four for $500 on average per month.
That’s the same cost as eating out for half the time.

Even working multiple jobs and two kids I can still make healthy meals.
Stop buying into misinformation about eating healthy - it’s not expensive or time-consuming.
It only takes a bit of budgeting and even less time.
Massive food companies want everyone to believe that eating healthy is expensive and difficult.
They make more money that way.

For one it IS faster and easier. If you can't afford time and effort to cook, you REALLY can't afford the time and effort of kids!

Not Online!!! wrote:
He isn't though,considering he himself values those that try at equal position as the valuable ones, which would get completely dosregarded if he were a strict utilitarian, due to them not succeding in the first place.

That's the inherent contradiction, to which he can't (i.e. won't) consider. No one could realistically live as a strict Utilitarian, in the same way no one could be a strict Skeptic (because you'd die). Like how the apocryphal Pyrrho is portrayed.

It's just subjective normative claims branded as "objective superiority." Or objective morality, or whatever it gets called. There isn't anything objective about it, that's just a buzz-word to make a claim to authority. That's why I disengaged. There is no sense in it, because you can't have an actual conversation, it's just someone telling you why they are right (and you are "objectively," then, wrong).

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
See that's your perception of another perspective, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of viewpoints beyond your own. Which is why I'm not taking you seriously.

I'm still waiting for a reason why anyone who thinks "I don't know how to cook something in 2019 where I can literally youtube a step-by-step process on how to disassemble an aircraft engine or sew an entire Batman costume" should think that I'd be too terribly bothered about what they take seriously. Obviously, if you can't take your own health seriously enough, and your excuses are "I don't have time", "I don't have a stove/oven", or "I don't know how to learn"- well, taking me seriously should be your last concern. There's a lot more out there to prioritize.

At this point, if you don't have any of those things- there's not really much reason for you to be on a page discussing a game that involves $40.00 plastic space men.

It's not about not knowing how. It's about time and energy when working multiple jobs. Multiple HIGHLY PHYSICAL jobs.

 H wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
He isn't though,considering he himself values those that try at equal position as the valuable ones, which would get completely dosregarded if he were a strict utilitarian, due to them not succeding in the first place.

That's the inherent contradiction, to which he can't (i.e. won't) consider. No one could realistically live as a strict Utilitarian, in the same way no one could be a strict Skeptic (because you'd die). Like how the apocryphal Pyrrho is portrayed.

It's just subjective normative claims branded as "objective superiority." Or objective morality, or whatever it gets called. There isn't anything objective about it, that's just a buzz-word to make a claim to authority. That's why I disengaged. There is no sense in it, because you can't have an actual conversation, it's just someone telling you why they are right (and you are "objectively," then, wrong).

Tbf out of the viewpoint of the society you COULD regard his measurements as objectively enough. (Of course you could also vehemently refute them or apply other standards.

However that would require and argument and would therefore also need to a more measured statement because Else the Argument could be easily led ad absurdum via his own metric which would be in conflict witch his measurements standards.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Tbf out of the viewpoint of the society you COULD regard his measurements as objectively enough. (Of course you could also vehemently refute them or apply other standards.

However that would require and argument and would therefore also need to a more measured statement because Else the Argument could be easily led ad absurdum via his own metric which would be in conflict witch his measurements standards.

Sure, the "economic model" of, say, measuring the "value" of a human life as derived from it's economic productivity is "objective" enough, to qualify as objective. But that doesn't make it less morally repugnant, of course, if I don't accept the normative base assumption that this should be case. The notion that human existence is only valuable as a mean of economy just isn't going to pass my moral compass. He's free to make that case, he's free to sell the idea. I'm just not buying.

 Easy E wrote:
Where is the public kitchen in the library? How about the free printer? Also, who funds libraries?

The library has books. Some of them are cookbooks. I know, I borrowed one for the better part of 2012-2016. They didn't realize it was gone.

Are you referring to people who are homeless? I'm not sure I follow the acrobatics you're doing. I tell you what.

If the guy has no place to cook at all and lives in this odd little box, and doesn't know anyone at all who can show him how to cook, and he can't read, and he doesn't have the time or the energy to cook, and he's also stupid- I'll cut that one weirdo some slack, as long as he sits there and explains to me exactly how he wound up in this highly unusual predicament. I'll even feed him. Point this anomaly out to me, please.

 Vulcan wrote:
It's not about not knowing how. It's about time and energy when working multiple jobs. Multiple HIGHLY PHYSICAL jobs.

I wouldn't know anything about that after 20 years of active duty service, I guess you got me there.

(Psst, it's called 'a sandwich'. It's not too terrible for you. You don't have to cook it.)

Not Online!!! wrote:
And yes responsibility is something and of course the those that atleast tried to change are "more valuable"(if you even want to quantify people that way, and excuse me but that makes my skin crawl) but trying doesn't mean succeding and why there even developped an issue like addiction to fat f.e. is on a whole other side now is it.

The moment a grown adult that makes stupid decisions regarding his own health is my responsibility, then I fully advocate placing him in a facility where he is forced to exercise and his food is rationed. Because if we're going to make it society's responsibility to help people who can't take care of themselves, the people who are old enough and sound enough to know better- then I strongly recommend some sort of containment facility that can ensure they are made better. I would think this could even create jobs, as there could be aggressive individuals there to help motivate them with cattle prods or a lash or something.

Or better yet, we can ensure this never happens by making laws that keep people from eating certain things at certain times. We'll restrict access to it, and attempting to consume junk food without a proper ration voucher should result in fines or prison time.

Let's do the absurd thing where we place the burden of one's own well-being in the hands of the state. That always turns out great.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H wrote:
The notion that human existence is only valuable as a mean of economy just isn't going to pass my moral compass. He's free to make that case, he's free to sell the idea. I'm just not buying.

Until I have determined whether or not people have any real nutritional value, they are all worthless otherwise. So yes, the economic value is all we got.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Ghool wrote:

 H wrote:
Why does it have to be all of one thing or the other?

Why can't it partly be personal responsibility and partly systemic issues? Sure, it's hard to know just how much of any particular it is one or the other, but that doesn't mean it must be only one or the other.

Think about about, let's say we find out, definitively that it's 99% characterological and 1% systemic. Even in that case, why should be allow that systemically 1%? Is it that we should have a "litmus test" so the 99% can "feel better" about not falling into the systemic trap? If so, why not just legalize heroin or crack, or whatever, then we, who don't take it, can point at those who do and feel much better about our the fortitude of willpower vs. those degenerates? Sounds good for the "beautiful souls" but why, exactly, is that something that should be allowed?

Think about this as well, lets say some food company finds a way to make a drug that is literally more addictive than heroin or cocaine. It's is tasteless and so on. It doesn't get you high, but it does make you want more of it. So, it would just make you want to eat more of the food that it is in.

If such a thing were to exist, should it be allowed? Why or why not? You can say, "no such thing could or would exist!" but that is besides the point. We are addressing the philosophical point, about what should or should not be "allowed" (morally/ethically) in food.

To spice it, let us further consider just say the further case where this stuff, whatever it is, makes food "taste better" and has some long-term, negative health effect as well. Should it be allowed?

In other words, how much should we be delarcing that people need to battle systemic forces with their personal responsibility vs. not allowing systemically harmful things to exist at all?

It’s called sugar. And in tests run with rats addicted to cocaine, they chose sugar over the cocaine.
It exists. And it’s ubiquitous. And it’s in everything.
And it should be treated the same as alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs, and any other regulated substance.

Dosis makes the poison.
I doubt banning suguar would solve the issue,but eliminating corn siroop, or implementing limits on refined suguar would go a long way.

Pretty sure he means regulating it as a substance that people can't be trusted to self-regulate with. Banning sugar is obviously ridiculous and no one with even the most superficial understanding would suggest that, so I think we are all on the same page here.

I think there is middle ground to be found here. Clearly having a more self sufficient populace is better for society, however, modern society is obsessed with convenience, and having everything handed to them immediately. This plays right into the hands of the fast food, ready meal industries, who also aided in its creation, sort of like a self fulfilling prophecy. But the fact is some people will always take that easy option.

I agree with AD in that eating healthy does not need to be expensive or difficult. I feed a family of 3 on c. £50 a week, and we could bring that down if we were more frugal. Things like stir frys, curries, bolognese, chillis or fajita wraps are all super easy to cook with a basic 2 base hob, and take between 10-30 minutes. I know because that's what I used to cook when I lived as a singly in barracks. I didn't want to spend ages cooking after work, but this was easy, and easy to make 2-3 servings to last a few days, or take for lunch.
To me it's a mindset. I know that I need to eat well to stay healthy, so it's worth putting the time in, regardless of how tired you may be. I get those who are saying people are tired after working lots of jobs etc. But standing in front of a hob for 20 mins is not difficult.

However, I also think that it can be difficult for some people, on my old camp, I lived in the village which surrounded it. The bus services into the nearest town were slowly decimated until they cancelled them all together. This meant that anyone in the village who couldn't drive, or had no access to a lift, had no way to get to the supermarket, only the village shop, which is more expensive and has fewer choice of fruit, veg, meats etc, so I could see how someone poorer could be forced to buy cheap ready meals in a situation like that.

There needs to be more education in life skills like cooking good food, how to dress properly, iron and repair clothing, fiscal responsibility etc, in the education system. god knows I'd rather my kid learnt those things than about 'gender and LGBT' stuff.

The moment a grown adult that makes stupid decisions regarding his own health is my responsibility, then I fully advocate placing him in a facility where he is forced to exercise and his food is rationed. Because if we're going to make it society's responsibility to help people who can't take care of themselves, the people who are old enough and sound enough to know better- then I strongly recommend some sort of containment facility that can ensure they are made better. I would think this could even create jobs, as there could be aggressive individuals there to help motivate them with cattle prods or a lash or something.

Okay, let me stop you right there. There is a difference between responsibility and Acountability that is important. Responsible government doesn't put the acountability on the wrong people.
Secondly, IF you would propperly apply your OWN measurments which you DON'T, then you COULDN'T VALUE those that try higher, becuase they are just as failed even moresoe due to beeing even LESS productive due to their fight with the addiction. That is btw the issue the people here have with your argument, because not only is it a questionable measurement for societey and value but ALSO hypocritical applied with a subjective morality which contradicts your own measurements.
Because if you were to apply your standards without the obvious double standard of your subjectivitey ALL these people , including handicapped ones are unworthy then out of your perspective.

But then again you also suggested camps with cattleprobs.
"hebsch de finger, gahts der ringer.
Hebsch d'Hand, regierschs Land." Much hu.

Or better yet, we can ensure this never happens by making laws that keep people from eating certain things at certain times. We'll restrict access to it, and attempting to consume junk food without a proper ration voucher should result in fines or prison time.

See above, an actual responsible government wouldn't hold you accountable for the cost, nor would it do your suggestion, it would instead seek to punish those that are actually the ones allowing for such practices in the food industry.

Let's do the absurd thing where we place the burden of one's own well-being in the hands of the state. That always turns out great.

Did I at any point suggest that the burden of the well beeing is in the state?
Is the burden in the people themselves?


The state is just evil and corrupt and non-responsible?
Actually on the last one: I am sorry but that minimalistic selfhelp bs is hillarious, because it is propagated that benefit from the lack of regulation. To the benefits of the established elites.

Newsflash: Your government is corrupt because it endorses but is not limited to:

>Burocratic polticisian due to patronage system
>Non responsibility to the base voter, beyond election campaigns.

And it is so since the start of the US, including census based voting rights, and later all sorts of shenanigans.Maybee , just maybee it isn't the state but the underlying ideology you should reflect on, maybee just maybee you should stop and think that there are interests at play that need a checks and balances system torwards the true sovereign of any nation.

There's some interesting discussion going on here, but I think it's time to introduce one of my new favorite concepts: Big Five personality types. I swear this will eventually be back to on topic, but this might be a bit rambly.

The internet is full of personality quizzes and tests of varying veracity. From Buzzfeed "Which Gilmore Girl are you" to the classic Meyers Briggs, personality classification is a proper cottage industry, especially if you chuck in the revival of astrology. However, even the best of them, like the Enneagram or Meyers Briggs, is based more on pseudoscience than anything reliable. But personality science is a legit branch of psychology, and they have come up with, if not an overarching theory, at least a collection of five personality traits which are measurable, consistent over a lifetime, and show up in all population types. this doesn't translate into super fun archetypes (I'm an ENTP, Type 8 Challenger, and a Slytherin FWIW), but it does provide far more reliable abilities to predict behavior.

As the name suggests, there are five axes in the Big Five system:
Introversion/Extroversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Openness
Neuroticism

Each of these leads to certain predictable behaviors. A Person with high openness will try new things, seek out new experiences, and be more comfortable with change. A person high in Conscientiousness will be hard working, reliable, and organized. Neuroticism is balanced by emotional stability to control emotion. Not all are truly neutral, as high neuroticism tends to be a problem, as does very low Conscientiousness. Still though, if you've ever had a coworker who always seems grouchy, but does very good work, that's a person with low agreeableness but high Conscientiousness.

More than anything else, the Big 5 can often predict both a person's politics and how persuadable they can be. A person with high Conscientiousness, somebody who really emphasis hard work and self discipline, is more likely to be conservative, as is a person with low openness. The character Red from That 70's Show is an almost perfect portrayal of a person with very high Conscientiousness, very low agreeableness and openness, and generally conservative views. Generally, more open people are more likely to examine their own beliefs, and they are also more comfortable with change.

These traits also generally don't change from childhood to adulthood, which means that a child with low Conscientiousness is likely to become an adult with what we'd normallly call a poor work ethic. of course, adaptability and flexibility are keyed to low Conscientiousness. So, hypothetically, a child that grew up in a poor household who had to learn to adapt, make quick decisions, and be spontaneous, might not be able to easily grow into a hyper focused adult. Of course, the world is full of successful people who don't work super hard, perhaps because they can leverage that flexibility. Most of the Big five are split roughly 50/50 between genetics and upbringing (based on twin studies).

So, this means that a "lazy" adult probably had little choice in the matter. Between genes and home life, they developed a work ethic or lack thereof in the same way we develop other aspects of ourselves like height, eye color, or IQ.

Now, one thing that we see a lot is that people view their own personality, which usually has been a big part of their success (however minimal), as good. So, if hard work, being organized, and always giving 100% paid off, you will often see that as valuable and even virtuous. Likewise, if you are pretty disagreeable, and you see the world full of liars and thieves, you will reject as virtuous ideals of kindness and empathy.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Ghool wrote:

 H wrote:
Why does it have to be all of one thing or the other?

Why can't it partly be personal responsibility and partly systemic issues? Sure, it's hard to know just how much of any particular it is one or the other, but that doesn't mean it must be only one or the other.

Think about about, let's say we find out, definitively that it's 99% characterological and 1% systemic. Even in that case, why should be allow that systemically 1%? Is it that we should have a "litmus test" so the 99% can "feel better" about not falling into the systemic trap? If so, why not just legalize heroin or crack, or whatever, then we, who don't take it, can point at those who do and feel much better about our the fortitude of willpower vs. those degenerates? Sounds good for the "beautiful souls" but why, exactly, is that something that should be allowed?

Think about this as well, lets say some food company finds a way to make a drug that is literally more addictive than heroin or cocaine. It's is tasteless and so on. It doesn't get you high, but it does make you want more of it. So, it would just make you want to eat more of the food that it is in.

If such a thing were to exist, should it be allowed? Why or why not? You can say, "no such thing could or would exist!" but that is besides the point. We are addressing the philosophical point, about what should or should not be "allowed" (morally/ethically) in food.

To spice it, let us further consider just say the further case where this stuff, whatever it is, makes food "taste better" and has some long-term, negative health effect as well. Should it be allowed?

In other words, how much should we be delarcing that people need to battle systemic forces with their personal responsibility vs. not allowing systemically harmful things to exist at all?

It’s called sugar. And in tests run with rats addicted to cocaine, they chose sugar over the cocaine.
It exists. And it’s ubiquitous. And it’s in everything.
And it should be treated the same as alcohol, cigarettes, prescription drugs, and any other regulated substance.

Dosis makes the poison.
I doubt banning suguar would solve the issue,but eliminating corn siroop, or implementing limits on refined suguar would go a long way.

Pretty sure he means regulating it as a substance that people can't be trusted to self-regulate with. Banning sugar is obviously ridiculous and no one with even the most superficial understanding would suggest that, so I think we are all on the same page here.

Yes, absolutely.
I’m of the mind that, at the very least, sugar should be labelled as almost all other ingredients on nutritional labels.
If you notice any nutritional label on foods, there’s a percentage for all vitamins, minerals, fats, sodium, potassium, etc.
The only thing on that label that has no daily value percentage is sugar. And the reason for this is because of sugar lobbying. The parallels between the tobacco industry and sugar industry is frightening.
You can’t ban a substance that can be abused. That never works.
But forcing the companies that make sugar so ubiquitous in our food chain need to be held accountable in some other way.
Without having any sort of daily maximum or daily ‘healthy’ value of sugar, allows them to put as much of the stuff into a food product as they want.
Look at the epidemic that is Type 2 Diabetes for proof.
It’s a substance that can and is easily abused. And not by the people that buy the food.
It’s the companies that make it and fill it with sugar that need to be held accountable for upholding certain standards.

That said, people just need to be a little more aware and twist their wrists and start reading labels.
A can of Coke contains over 11 teaspoons of sugar, and kids are allowed to freely buy and drink the stuff.
11 teaspoons of sugar in a single can, and most soda drinkers are downing 4 or 5 a day.
And everyone wonders why Type 2 Diabetes is an epidemic?

Maybe its a local thing, but the health lobby has sneakily undermined the sugar lobby when it comes to % dose by labeling "added sugars" as their own item which DO have a percentage. Obviously not ideal and classically inefficient, but it is something. And I think it is as important to note steps forward as it is steps back.

Out here they list the % daily intake of sugar. If something naturally has a lot of sugar but no added sugar, sometimes the manufacturer will list "sugar" and "added sugar" to highlight that they didn't put in extra.

But I don't know how effective it is, plenty of fatties over here as well. When you read that a can of soda has 45% of your daily intake of sugar, you wonder if it should be a controlled substance that's illegal to give to kids. Anything that has more than 1/3 your daily intake in a single serving is a bit crazy.

As a fizzy drink fan, I mix my own with greatly reduced sugar, but I still probably drink too much.

its like anything in life, it requires moderation. I love sweets, chocolate, fizzy drinks, donuts, whatever else, but I also know that if I constantly eat them, I will turn into a fat mess.

what that means is that I have those sorts of things every now and then. Me and my Wife will have a dessert in the evening, usually an ice cream cone or something similar, and the odd chocolate bar during the day. Cokes and sugary drinks are a rarity... once every couple of weeks, occasionally with a rum.

I also work in a fairly physical profession, and exercise regularly.

Unfortunately, some people cant moderate. I know folks at work who drink a can of coke a day, or more. even worse are the cans of monster, mountain dew etc. its not good for people at all.

I honestly don't know how Americans aren't all super fat. everything seemed to be sweet and sugar filled out there..even the glazes on the wings, the sauces for the burgers etc.