Controlling how others live..

[undergroundpanther]

There are countless health"advocates" everywhere these days claiming that by following their advice it will save or extend your life.
Doing things like,not eating meat,not smoking,not eating fast food ,not being sedentary, or whatever else that is 'good for you 'today.....that you MUST DO.Because it is claimed RISKY not to go along with it.

But there is one little problem with imposing that prohibition of risk ..We all will die anyway. So what is so wrong with enjoying the time you have here? If you like to eat, why feel shame for liking what you are eating? .Why does this urge to control other people's lifestyle choices some find un-aesthetic or not productive or 'unhealthy' justify use of the state or bullying to control other people's choices,risks and habits that are not impacting your safety directly?

What about our culture got us into policing each others choices to the point we want to limit what risks others can choose to take with their own bodies?
When did we learn to stop owning our bodies and start attempting to choose what other people can or cannot do with their bodies??

Any social engineer can advocate or influence public opinions or even change the choices some make, but once you use the state or some other institution to bully to control what other people can or cannot eat,ingest, speak, and how they choose to live their own lives ,seeking to limit which risks that effect themselves,as in what they are permitted to choose for themselves,it means as a society we have just moved closer to fascism.Really.

The kind of corporate state,run by a few oligarchs, kinda like how America is currently ,sees people as units of production/profit.So for the wealthiest and most control hungry it's no wonder the corporate structure that supports the CEO and State wants to use as much of other people's lives and labor as is possible. Our happiness,satisfaction, or joy..means NOTHING to the efficient minded. It's just like the greedy pork producer said from Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle," the company uses every part of the pig except the squeal."This kind of mentality is what the state beholden to corporations really wants from us,to use us up,take our labor, use our lives our bodies and use them as efficiently and for as long as possible without having to pay for upkeep of said laboring body..(Corporations think by controlling how we eat,dress,what we ingest,etc.Manipulating our lifestyles by social engineering they can maximize the labor output of each person.)
Like the greedy pork producer,The corporate state wants to silence our cries of anger at social injustices,make us risk aversive, make us forget abuses of power and tolerate income disparity. Because our suffering and outrage ,to the owner class is useless to them, like the pig's squeal is to the pork producer,useless for efficiency, production & profits.

So be wary of what you will tolerate being done to others or options taken away in the name of "your own good".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If there is a thread that runs through all these volumes, it is the harmony of murder and modernization. Aly and his collaborators paint a picture of a ruthlessly rationalized "Final Solution of the Social Question" (Endldsung der Sozialfrage), engineered by physicians and diplomats, police theorists and Gestapo agents, economists and anthropologists. Sometimes I wonder, though, what the term modernization really means.

The Nazis supported science-based technology, cost-effective social policy, preventive medicine, electroshock and work therapy, and large-scale demographic planning. Germany under Hitler saw the development of synthetic rubber, the rocket- propelled bomb, television, nuclear fission, the world's first computers, and a host of other inventions. As Mark Walker has recently shown, Nazi leaders abandoned the idiotic, Aryan supremacist German Physics in 1940, in order to guarantee a competent supply of physicists to work on an atom bomb.52 Fortunately for Europe and the world, they failed.

If these things are modern, then so were the Nazis. But presumably so were Einstein and Kafka, the architects of the Bauhaus, the planners of the TVA, the commissars of Stalin's Russia, and so on. Nets as loose as these may capture very little. How is it of interest that fascists were proponents of reform? What is the value of a term that encompasses both Auschwitz and the Bauhaus, Franz Boas and Adolf Hitler? Perhaps all that is meant is that Nazi crimes were perpetrated as part of a larger program of rationalizing economic production consistent with economic growth. But rationalizing production was only one of several Nazi goals. The Nazis also sought a more "organic" - that is, biological - way of living, one that would be in harmony with presumed natural and racially specific laws. We should recall that Nazi authorities banished white bread as a chemical product, scorned DDT, revived midwifery, and banned smoking in public buildings. Dachau produced organic honey; the SS controlled most German mineral baths and waters. There is a curious mix of enlightenment and romance in the Nazi view of the world....


I don't think it was the tirades of Julius Streicher in Der Stürmer that attracted their interest, but rather the promises of Nazi leaders to solve Germany's problems medically, surgically. The Nazi state was supposed to be a hygienic state; Nazism was supposed to be "applied biology" ...
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395193
http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artproctor.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Every person who smokes, is going to die
Every person who never smokes, is going to die

Every person who is "overweight", is going to die
Every person who is never "overweight", is going to die

Every person who uses illicit drugs, is going to die
Every person who never uses illicit drugs, is going to die

Every person who drinks alcohol, is going to die
Every person who never drinks alcohol, is going to die

Every person who fails to heed the advice of health advocates, is going to die
Every person who devotedly follows all the advice of health advocates, is going to die


Now the question comes - since we are all going to die, no matter what precautions we may take - is it justifiable for health advocates to force people to conform to certain lifestyles which those advocates claim will maximize the length of a person's life?

http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/deathisinevitable/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What this all boils down to I think,is it is hard to accept in this world we all suffer,youth fades the good health goes, and the joys in life are fleeting.We don't want to grow old, feeble,weak,sick and die.And we don't want to see the ones we love suffer and die either.

We want the good things to last. But they don't.We want someone to fix it, to make things better,or to cure this human condition,but there is no final solutions.

We can lie to ourselves, invent things like "karma" to explain injustices away.We can make claims that this world is a big 'school' and we chose before birth to suffer here for"lessons",We can pretend the world is just.We can pretend a savior will come and take us away from all this shit one day.We can pin our hopes on a leader or await a miracle medicine, or long for a hero on a big white horse. We can fight against this condition in a billion ways but we will die anyway.

And we can in our zeal to fix the world for it's own good we can even use the state to control how everyone lives,(social engineering) and so we can become risk aversive,fearing uncertainty as fascists do. But in the end no one escapes reality and this human condition alive.(in this world does not apply to just humans alone.).

And to me my thought is...Why not just live, love,explore, and be free,enjoy what you enjoy while you can? Protect what is precious to you,your own and others happiness.You can be very healthy but feel suicidal if you are not feeling alive and have something in your life that gives you enough joy to stick around.. .It isn't all about having a perfect body,a great career,a perfect lawn, or a non smoking policy, or the systemic elimination of meat eating and fast food.

It is the life you have at this moment and what you want to do with it.Do you live in the future and make now a burden or do you live in the past to avoid deciding things now,or do you just live and let others live,enjoy and let others enjoy, love and let others love? Why be a controller to those who are not seeking to control,abuse or harm you?

For in this world anyone's life could end at any time no matter what precautions they take, or don't take.

Is it so threatening to radically rethink priorities in the face of uncertainty sometimes?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Which values and ideologies exist within the Western culture and dominate on the different social levels and form and direct social life, including the social activities of science and the establishment of knowledge? The sociologist Bourdieu (1998) concludes categorically with regard to the situation of ideology in contemporary Western society: "... it is taken for granted that maximum growth, and therefore productivity and competitiveness, are the ultimate and sole goal of human actions; or that economic forces cannot be resisted." (p.30-1). And Bourdieu (1998) states that the dissemination of this value in the Western world today is great: "Everywhere we hear it said, all day long - and this is what gives the dominant discourse its strength - that there is nothing to put forward in opposition to the neo-liberal view, that it has succeeded in presenting itself as self-evident, that there is no alternative." (p.29). Probably then the neo-liberal view contributes more and more to the strengthening within psychology and the social sciences of this idea of humankind as basically an egoistic and self-interested individuality.
http://www.radpsynet.org/journal/vol3-1/HildeEileenNafstad.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Control and imposing control on others choices because of your own aesthetic wants is just selfish. Controlling others based on popularized beliefs about health ,fast food or whatever else that is seen as the latest lifestyle choice that is being demonized, will not add a day of happiness to anyone's life.


Control games really DO take happiness in life away from others whom are subjected to the oppression created when "authorities"' or the state starts taking away the freedom to choose, to risk,to direct for oneself the way one lives," for their own good".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Trivial uncertainty is defined uncertainty which makes it -psychologically speaking – safe. Radical uncertainty, on the other hand, is completely undefined, and so it is not psychologically ‘safe’ (i.e. it is ‘unreliable’ and so we can’t afford to relax and get comfortable about it).

LIFE IS ‘RADICALLY UNCERTAIN’
http://www.radicaluncertainty.com/nwilliamsdocs/radicalrisk.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[BlooInBloo]

1. (shrug) People telling me what to eat can fuck off. Fucking militant vegetarians.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Food is the new Sex

--p!

[BlooInBloo]

4. I don't know what that means exactly, but I must be the horniest mofo EVER!

:rofl:

[flvegan]

7. Defensive much?

Nobody is telling you what to eat. Are they? No more than anyone telling you how to vote, right?

[undergroundpanther]

13. Some vegetarians really pressure people

Guilt trip,push, and act self righteous.It's really annoying when you run into that type of vegetarian, they act like food fundies.

[uberllama42]

26. I have to wonder about these folks who complain about 'militant vegetarians'

How do they react when a canvasser knocks on their door, for a political candidate or a religious sect? Do they tell them to fuck off, get their noses out of other people's lives, and slam the door? That's at least as invasive as some dietitian saying they're better off not eating meat. It just doesn't seem consistent to me.

[pitohui]

29. i do not answer the door to strangers, it's 2008

just because you may still tolerate people intruding on your life, time, and privacy, don't assume that i do

[undergroundpanther]

31. It depends on what they are selling and how rude they are

What reply they get.

[Marrah_G]

42. Actually some are.... which is who the anger is aimed at

I have friends who are veggies and vegans, I've cooked for them, they've cooked for me.

We respect each others choices.

I have yet to meet anyone in real life who say the things I seen said on here.

(from both sides)

If I were to give them crap for not eating meat I doubt we would still be friends.

If they were to give me crap about eating meat I doubt we would still be friends.

People need to learn to treat one another respectfully.

I have little use for those who are intent on pushing their views on me.

No matter what the subject matter.

[RadiationTherapy]

45. I also get irrationally angry when something I love to do is very damaging to the environment.

But forgive yourself, you are an American. You eat as much factory meat as you like.

[Poseidan]

50. sucks when people tell you what to murder

Of course, what happens when the animals themselves tell you to stop eating them?

[ColbertWatcher]

3. "What about our culture got us into policing each others choices" ? Religion. n/t

[undergroundpanther]

5. No,I think it was

An entitlement fantasy, like eternal life,wealth and domination for ME only,a psychopathic mentality that gave rise to ,empires and the market.

Before religion there was greed and the desire to dominate and abuse.

[ColbertWatcher]

10. I thought you were talking our culture. (American?) n/t

[undergroundpanther]

14. Yes I am

Talking about our culture & western culture in general.

[ColbertWatcher]

16. "western culture in general" Okay, so I guess that did precede religion. n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

19. Come to think of it, religion still plays a big part in telling people what to do. n/t

[Gwendolyn]

21. Most religions admonish against the sin of gluttony.

It's Big Business/Corporate Interests, including Big Pharma that want to keep us as large and sedentary as possible.

[ColbertWatcher]

23. Yes, but religion has instructed people how to live their lives.

For better or for worse.

I think the OP was asking about where the idea of telling people what's right and what's wrong for their own lives. And I suggested it originated with religion.

[Gwendolyn]

24. It's prob more of an evolutionary instinct.

We quickly learned as soon as we could walk, that herding together as a group increased the likelihood of our survival, which introduced the need for rules and conformity. (Our penchant for bigoted tribalism is largely a leftover of our evolutionary past). Religion was only introduced later as a really good tool for herd management.

[Two Americas]

61. brilliant

Great insight, great OP, great thread.

[RainDog]

6. colbert watcher, you are a gift from god

...and I mean that in a good way, even tho I'm agnostic at best.

[ColbertWatcher]

9. LOL! n/t

[dysfunctional press]

8. who'd want to live a long and miserably boring life?

not i.

but then, i'm genetically pre-disposed to a shortened life span.

part and parcel of why i retired at 38.

[The2ndWheel]

11. Efficiency

On a scale from one to infinity, what's the most efficient number? One. Every form of organization requires conformity, or else it will break down. For example, if people had a choice as to which taxes they were going to pay, or if they were going to pay taxes at all, you couldn't keep a nation together. That's why we want to change from a health care system with different insurance companies, to a single system where everyone pays into it. Actual diversity wastes energy, it's very inefficient. Instead of different groups of people having different ways of doing things, we pass laws so that men, women, black, white, etc, can all work in the same corporation. I don't happen to think that's too diverse, but others do, which is actually diversity in action. It's also wasting energy, since it would all be much easier if we all agreed on the definition of everything.

The more we try to control everything, the more we end up having to try to control everything.

[undergroundpanther]

15. ummm

If you value efficiency you will have different agendas,priorities and perceptions that will shape your ethics and meaning system,from those that are not so concerned over efficiency..

[The2ndWheel]

20. And it's pretty much an unsolvable struggle between the two

Part of existence. It's why civilizations rise and fall. That conflict may not even be between two people, it can be a culture of consumption and life outside that system. Just take a look at our environmental problems to see that.

[Poseidan]

38. efficiency isn't always better

Does anyone here want to live under dictatorship?

[DRoseDARs]

12. Quality of Life vs Quantity of Life argument.

The quality of the vices in you life may be negated by their harmful side effects. Tobacco causes cancer (and the wonderfully nasty physiological things that go with that shouldn't be forgotten) and if not properly dealt with will significant decrease you quantity of life. Also, if you do or don't properly deal with it, it will still drain your economic resources, again potentially cutting into your quality of life (crushing debt to pay medical bills is a great source of stress). The same scenarios can be applied to many other vices of an artificial nature (most illicit and legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco, as well as many heavily-processed foods) that affect health in a more negative than positive manner. Meat I would argue doesn't quite fit since Humans are omnivores and can either eat it raw (not recommended, just saying) as our line has done since carnivore split from herbivore eons ago, or cook the raw meat (recommended, kills bacteria) which is a one step process. You can be fat and happy (more power to you), but you cannot be fat and healthy. Skinny isn't too good either. Too skinny and you either die (situational starvation ie Ethiopia or intentional starvation ie should really just send the food you're wasting to Ethiopia, Lord knows they need and want it) or you end up in the hospital and get force-fed and get counseling. Either way, again the negative qualities outweigh the positive qualities of your chosen vice.

Now for the sarcasm:
No one's advocating Soylent Green, but Jesus Christ you can go one day without eating a 4-lbs Fried Butter Bacon Burger? At this rate, there won't be any cows left to make belts out of to hold your pants up, Tubby. And have the decency to go outside with that fucking cigar. You smell like shit, this house smells like shit, because that cigar smells like shit. Leave the shit smell to the baby's diaper, asshole. ;)

[undergroundpanther]

17. wrong..

>you cannot be fat and healthy.
Yes you can.

Despite this alleged obesity "epidemic",
people are living longer
than any other time in known history.
Despite all the environmental pollution
and nasty shit in processed food.

In ancient Egypt
the life expectancy of an average
citizen was around 35 years.
Pharaoh Ramses lived to be 80.
Pharaohs did not look like their sculptures
they often were fat..
The thinner Egyptians dying at age 35,
thought Ramses would live forever.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The fact is, if you’re fit, it doesn’t matter what your BMI is in terms of mortality," says Dr Steven Blair, an epidemiologist and president of the institute recently told the Los Angeles Times.

"Once we adjusted for fitness levels, we didn’t see any difference in death rates between the fit and lean and the fit and fat," Blair said.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/05/1065292465637.html

America is VERY fat Phobic.and Bigoted twords fat people.Diets fail.Read the Minnesota starvation study.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet.fitness/10/14/fat.phobia.ap/index.html
http://media.www.theeastcarolinian.com/media/storage/paper915/news/2005/02/24/Opinion/Does-FatPhobia.Make.Us.Sick-2210101.shtml
http://life.familyeducation.com/eating-disorders/safety/36155.html?detoured=1
http://sandykumskov.com/2008/01/minnesota-starvation-study/

[DRoseDARs]

27. Oh please.

People are living longer because of advancements in clean water access and sewage sanitation, advancements in medicine, and advancements in basic hygiene, as well as greatly-limited exposure to disease-carrying pests and increased food safety. Peoples in ancient times didn't have access to the quantities of food we do now. The vast majority of people could never get as plump as you seem to be imagining they did because the reality is they had to grow what they ate and eat no more than they grew. And they certainly didn't have access to those things I listed moments ago. Today, most people in the Western world never see but the end of their food's journey to the grocery store. There is such an abundance, most aren't living hand-to-mouth. In ancient times, only the very rich and powerful would have such access to abundance, typically at the expense of their subjects who grew that abundance (which they called basic sustenance; usually not pleased when it was taken to those who didn't grow or herd it). The only risk of starvation today (TODAY. We're not talking about the coming nightmares of Peak Oil.) comes from lack of money to buy food, not lack of food to buy. As long as the masses have money to buy food, they'll buy food and usually more than they need to sustain themselves. The body is more than happy to store that extra food if the people don't likewise increase their physical activity. Maybe if we had to actually hunt down our cattle for ourselves at McDonald's, it'd burn off whatever calories we'd gain from eating all those damn burgers we'd have made out of them.

Look, I could give a shit if someone is morbidly obese or dangerously underweight. If they don't want to change for the better, there's nothing anyone can do except strap them down to a bed and force them. Seeing as that's frowned upon by society AND YOU (That is the whole point of this thread, is it not? Forcing people to be healthy, whether they like it or not, is wrong? The is your thesis, isn't it?), there really isn't any point in making them. I've had a morbidly obese friend (poor girl was in the nearly-300 range at 15) and I myself had been unhealthily thin (had to force myself to eat) so do tread lightly. You seem to be accusing me of thinking those emaciated wenches at fashion shows are what people are supposed to look like. No, fuck that.

And those links you posted:
2 opinion pieces, an AP article, a family lifestyle website, and the last one (your Minn. Starve Study) doesn't even cite its source. You'd've been better off posting the Wikipedia link about the study instead. MUCH more informative: The Minnesota Starvation Study was done in the 1940s, before the end of WW2. How about something post-WW2 when the United States and the rest of the Western world greatly expanded domestic production (thanks to war factories and workers now available to produce domestic goods) and set us up for expanded wastelines? Do you think THAT data might be a little more relevant? All you did with those links is ignore my contention that the health problems associated with being over- or underweight diminish quality of life (and ignored the part immediately preceding it about being able to be fat and happy). You've twisted it into quantity of life to suit your own point.

[undergroundpanther]

30. Ok whatever...

I do not respect people that will not let go of phobic over popularized beliefs,claiming to be "scientific"when they refuse to actually investigate links.The Minnesota Starvation study is WELL KNOWN. When fat Phobes claim to know why people are fat it is a bunch of the same old stuff that never solves the problem or even steps out of the fat phobic thinking infesting this country, and unwanted advice most of the time.It's OLD..

Truth is,even science as it stands now can't understand the metabolism.Calories in/out is not the answer if it WAS all fat people would be thin after diet #1.
There are skinny people that eat horrible diets but never get fat but they are sick but nobody dares suspect thin people can have clogged arteries and whatnot and there are fat people who eat very healthy.Fat people can be healthy it is TRUE.

And for sources look it up for yourself you DO know how to google right? I ain't wasting any more effort on fat phobic sarcastic replies.
I gave you some links explore the issue yourself. If you don't like those links google for MORE.Until you are satisfied or understand the point.Get rid of that condescending attitude .Puh-Leese..

[DRoseDARs]

35. At that post of yours right there exemplifies why your whole premise is off.

You're going for the emotional defense. Calling others "phobic" for calling out your weak premises strongly debases your arguments.

[Gwendolyn]

18. We're like the 9th fattest country on earth. Our freedom to be...

morbidly obese and plagued with the myriad of related disease that goes with it is hardly in any danger.

[trof]

22. Life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease.

[conscious evolution]

25. LOL!!

[BoneDaddy]

28. So we should all pay for the healthcare of people

who say fuck it to their health? One of the stupidest posts I have read in a long time. On a personal note, I really do not care what people do with their lives and I believe in sefl determination. But with the burden it places on healthcare costs because they do not care about themselves is staggering.

[undergroundpanther]

32. Ok who should get the"merciful death" first?

Old people,disabled,mentally ill,fat people,smokers,gay people,people with aids,hepatitis,MRSA,who? Who would you kill first in your wonderful desire to cull the herd of the 'waste' those practicing lifestyles you don't like, or who are not efficient enough?

Would you kill me? I'm not a paragon of efficiency. I don't tend to see myself as a unit of production to be exploited by rich assholes. I got a bit of fat,but than again my health is rather good despite my injuries and issues.Oh,and I despise the myth called authority and do not trust the state,church or corporation at all.

If I had to do genocide, I'd do away with the efficiency freaks,rich parasite greed heads,chronic bullies,corporate CEO's ,abusers,fake alphas, psychopaths,authoritarians and narcissists.That would wipe out the fundies, corporate corruption and all the republicans..
:sarcasm:

[cherokeeprogressive]

51. ANYONE who engages in risky behavior possibly resulting in injury or death.

Such as swimming, riding in a car, flying on commercial airlines, riding a bicycle in the bike lane, living in a high crime area, or dating people they met over the internets.

Kill them all. Then there'll be more plants for the REST of us to eat. Oops, wait. I've done all of the above.

At what eugenics center should I turn in my human ID card?

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Yes, because the alternative is an endless labyrinth of picking and choosing "okay" behaviors.

Some non-smokers ride motorcycles like idiots.

Some non-drinkers have sex with multiple partners.

Some people who are in great shape physically engage in other risky behavior.

The ONLY sane approach is to cover everyone in a Single Payer System, make treatment or healthier options available for people who CHOOSE to improve their situation. Otherwise it'll be this endless game of "I don't want to pay for your smoking" "I don't want to pay for your drinking" "I don't want to pay for your high-risk sex life" etc. etc.

And personally, I don't drink, don't smoke, eat very well and exercise- so I should be one of the people worried about paying for everyone else.. but it's more important to me that everyone have health coverage. I could give a shit about running other people's lives.

[Gwendolyn]

37. I lived under the Canadian universal healthcare system for 5 years.

It was heaven for many reasons, and of course people simply pay in and don't think about whether their obese, smoker neighbor is reaping more benefits out of the system. It's there for those who need it, when they do.

However, I did notice that a lot more PSA commercial spots aired regarding health and nutrition. Doctors practice preventative medicine, and so like it or not, they will tell you if you drink, smoke or eat too much. The health-related problems accompanying an increasing obesity problem is a burden on the system so efforts are made to educate and help people.

[undergroundpanther]

58. You get it

Thank you much. For what you said.
Either we all have some or we get this regulated sick rating system run by greed that supports no one.
Risk is part of life. Take no risks in life you might as well be DEAD.

[cobalt1999]

43. You do realize the the health care costs of geriatrics is high too.

Those who say "fuck it to their health" many times die quickly and less expensively.

[Greyhound]

52. Yes. The OP sums up exactly why we should all pay for everybody's health care.

Once you justify forcing others to comply with external standards through violence (government), the precedent is set and you move our whole society further toward totalitarianism.

Besides, the argument you espouse is nothing but reich-wing bullshit that has been shown to be insignificant over and over again. Unrestricted, preventative care is the single most effective solution to health care costs available.

Keep repeating it to yourself until it gets through, "early detection and prevention is the key".

(Also, establishing and enforcing purity standards to our food supply would go much further in improving our health than any consumption prohibition could)

[Two Americas]

60. not correct

People who die earlier cost less. It is the healthy people who are expensive, since they live into their 80's and 90's.

You certainly have bought into the "personal responsibility" ideas.

Human beings are not a "burden." If they were, carrying around your attitudes would "cost" us more than anything else, I think, since the consequences of that type of thinking are so pervasive and destructive.

[prayin4rain]

33. I was a kid when they passed the seat belt law and even

then I remeber thinking that it was so weird that the state could make grown-ups wear their seat belt.

[undergroundpanther]

34. Life is risk, it is,radical uncertainty.

and freedom is messy. If you are free, you have the right to risk things and deal with consequences, isn't that how people LEARN?,We all learn by risk so we need each other.You think a fat guy should be denied medical help,why not also deny the extreme sports player medical help for all the bones he breaks doing stupid stunts than.
Deny the CEO medical help because of his risky A type personality that makes him prone to heart attacks than. How do you determine which life is worth more care,attention or help than another?

To choose to risk,even if someone thinks that risk is self destructive is to be free.And freedom is something all of us bear if we really want to be free.When you cannot refuse, to do or not do a risk or can't refuse the authority figure telling you,you can't do this or you must do that,you are no longer free.

Radical uncertainty, on the other hand, is completely undefined, and so it is not psychologically ‘safe’ (i.e. it is ‘unreliable’ and so we can’t afford to relax and get comfortable about it).

LIFE IS ‘RADICALLY UNCERTAIN’

None of use decided to be here,we were born here,and we will all die too.
So being worried and controlling over others risks and all the bean counting it is all for naught really.Because both the risk taker you admonish,and the bean counter that claims the risk taker costs too much and the person paying all will die.There ARE NO NET GAINS in this efficiency zero sum game in a world where death takes all.It is bullshit and it keeps us attempting to control each other.It is insane to play efficiency games in a world so random,wild, diverse and naturally against modern efficiency fantasies people burden each other with..

[Gwendolyn]

55. It's possible to be overweight and healthy, just as it is to be thin and sickly.

But chronic obesity is about as close to freedom as alcoholism is. Addiction is prison.

You mentioned in your first post that it's fascist to tell people how they should eat, how much they should exercise, etc... and seem to claim that those who mock these admonitions are some kind of freedom mavericks who are the real heroes in our dull, rule-beleaguered world.

Perhaps you don't realize that from the time we could walk, industry has been selling us on food, all kinds of it, most of it fake, sugary, and fat-laden. We've been marketed our entire lives to mindlessly consume cheap fast food. Every couple of years the portions get even bigger than they already are. Big Pharma loves the results of this, and can plan to sell you buckets of medication over your illness-plagued, food-sedated lifetime, ranging from hypertension meds to the painkillers for shot knees and ankles, and everything else in between, including depression and loss of libido. Chronic obesity isn't some statement on freedom, it's the walking embodiment of a consumerist, robotic society.

[undergroundpanther]

57. And..

What did the people who saw this trap coming DO to stop the fuck-faces making that"great society" the consumer hell we live in today? There were plenty of chances to revolt.This consumer culture did not happen all at once,ya know, it came on us in increments bit by bit from the 1800's and before we knew it our ability to care about others and accept them was diminished,the ability to survive was stolen by the promise of a life of ease.Did the people refuse the conveniences that kill them? NO! They did their jobs obey the boss,live lives they suffer through buy more shit to kill the pain in the soul just like they are told to do.
Addicts are created when the things that nourish us in the heart and relation are replaced by simulations and lies.


We have a mess do we blame the victims yet again.

Or get enough guts to stand up for each other and destroy that lie that kills called consumer culture,capitalism ?
Do we stomp the ones profiting off our pain, or do we just whine at the ones suffering as if they knew anything else,or even were ALLOWED to know.

This is where you and I differ

I blame the creators of this so called"great society",the empire builders,The CEO, the market, and the marketers,the con man and psychopath.
I really just feel sad for those in pain,People trained from cradle to grave to consume work buy and deny the pain and emptiness this culture is, trying to make sense out of the senseless world as they try to find solace in that offers them none,sans addictions.And guess what? This culture was never DESIGNED to bring us empowerment,freedom or happiness..Because empowerment,freedom and happiness are not PROFITABLE.
Are you willing to HATE this world this culture as I do.
Are you willing to point your fingers UP to the very top and condemn the"leaders" salesmen , profit and industry for what they destroy with their power ,"big ideas", ambition,vanity and wealth?
Are you?

Are are you gonna dump on the guy aching deep inside ,addicted to trans fats,who was taught the only way to find a shot of happiness is in the way he was taught to from CHILDHOOD,by consuming?

Or will you direct that vitriol where it is most deserved at those who PROFIT from an addicted unhappy,,world carefully crafted by countless traumas to the soul each one endures in life,to defense mechanisms that lead it to be at war with itself?

[and-justice-for-all]

39. Yeah, we are all going to die...

but how is up to ME. I do not need to inhale toxins from a cigarette or be killed by a drunk driver..

[LanternWaste]

40. One persons' 'nanny state' is another person's...

One person's "nanny state" is another person's responsible and common-sense legislation. :shrug:

I myself haven't met too many people who know with both precision and with relevance the difference between the two.

More often than not, "nanny statism" is simply a piece of legislation a particular person doesn't agree with...

[Marrah_G]

41. There is a certain type of personality that will always believe it knows what is best for you

Since the beginning of time they have existed.

[Odin2005]

44. It's a modern, secular expression of the Calvinist-Puritan impulse of societal perfectionism.

At least in my opinion.

[Lilith Velkor]

53. Yyyup. n/t

[SmokingJacket]

46. But my decision to eat meat does NOT affect me alone.

It affects the cow, most directly, and the farmer that owns the cow, and the land on which the cow is raised, and air that takes up the carbon dioxide produced by the cow and the transportation of it. And of course all the people who share this air and this ecosystem.

If one's decisions are strictly personal -- like consensual sex -- then of course no one has any business interfering.

But eating meat, for example, is only different from, say, pumping the air full of pollution in a matter of degree.

(I do, in fact, eat meat, but I also believe other people have the right to harangue me about it!)

[bean fidhleir]

47. I'm a veg, but I look at health things this way: no matter how much

it costs me in added taxes to keep someone going after they've ruined their health, they're paying more. They're not paying in money, but they pay every minute in life, comfort, opportunities, etc.

I only harangue people for choices that exploit our near relatives, or that screw with our shared world.

[Romulox]

48. "Live and let live" rings all too hollow in a country with the HIGHEST PRISON POPULATION.

[undergroundpanther]

59. yeah it does dosent it?

But look to the ones who seek to regulate and make more laws as a way to make everything CHEAP.
The Answer to why the prison population is so huge is PROFITS, EFFICIENCY,and UNICOR!! CHEAP LABOR!!

Prisons are full of non violent offenders,caught with a bag of pot,stuck there for obscene lengths of time..Cheap labor,they do not pay prison workers much.The prison system is very efficient at extracting cheap labor.

The rapists get out in a few months and rape again..

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. Ummmmm Wait... You're Actually Serious? Holy Cow.

Outrage over the fact that there are groups that recommend healthy practices or give advice on what things are good for you and which things can have detrimental effects? And you consider the fact that such advice is given, and that the knowledge is available, as a bad thing? As a thing worthy of outrage?

Yeah, let's go back to the dark ages when no one knew jack shit. That's the ticket!

:eyes:

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.