aluminiumtrioxid

And that's a perspective I'm 100% behind, provided two requisites are met. To wit, that the subject in question has his cognitive abilities absolutely unimpaired and that he is aware of all available alternatives and can choose between them freely. Unfortunately, with overweight people, this usually isn't the case, from my experience at least. When the alternative is suicide, almost anything is better. If only because you cannot rectify and try different things after committing suicide, and you can always kill yourself later if literally everything else has failed. People consider suicide when they see no way out of the situation they are in. That doesn't always mean there is no way out, and in this particular context there very much is a way out that is attainable for just about anyone with adequate guidance and support. Exactly this. The core problem with the implementation of libertarian ideals like "people have a right, hell, a moral obligation to kill themselves if that's what they feel would improve on their situation" is that they're entirely dependent on the idea of human beings as rational actors motivated purely by enlightened self-interest, which, as cognitive science has repeatedly shown us, is laughably false.

Whatever floats your boat. It's a shame you didn't have anything meaningful to say about how lack of action and submitting to the government will help the Ukrainian situation to deescalate. ...What do you think has led to it escalating in the first place? Way to vastly overestimate humanity's ability to impact the ultimate outcome of events in a cosmic (hell, even planetary) scale. Survival of human race is hardly a cosmic or planetary scale event. You're free to argue over semantics as much as you want; doesn't change the fact that "most people would impact the world in a negative way if they acted on their beliefs" isn't refuted by "humanity hasn't wiped itself out yet, therefore you're wrong" unless you can also prove that the original statement being true would unavoidably lead to humanity having wiped itself out by now. It's kind of a "bro, do you even logic?" issue. MOST will agree?! Now that is really a biggest blow to credibility of medicine I ever seen. I guarantee you that ALL 6 year olds WILL AGREE to the same statement without wasting hundreds on thousands on getting a medical degree. I wasn't appointed but I think "most doctors" will agree they don't want you to defend them because you are doing more harm trying to help than other people that actually try to harm them. Personal attacks instead of rational arguments, coupled with a bad case of tone-deafness. Classy. Go on... Please enlighten me how a medicine branch that deals in 99% on the impact diet has on human body and whose 99% of patients seek help in relation with obesity will survive if the statement "diet and exercise have no impact on obesity" was in fact true. diabetology Type: Term Pronunciation: dī′ă-be-tol′ō-jē Definitions: 1. The field of medicine concerned with diabetes. You seem to be confusing it with dietology (or, more correctly, dietetics), which is pretty much the textbook definition of what I alluded to, ie. you having no idea what it is.

Now there's an amusing sentence. I especially love how not only "every thinking person will agree or disagree" is just about as meaningful a statement as "objects are either blue or they're not", but also has zero connection to the rest of what you're trying to say. It's either that or we are f**** up as a species, and I don't think we would survive this long if we would truly be. Way to vastly overestimate humanity's ability to impact the ultimate outcome of events in a cosmic (hell, even planetary) scale. Or, at least, impact it in a positive direction; see also: global warming. Nice try, but that's not how medicine works. For example, most doctors will agree that missing a large chunk of your upper body is generally not going to increase your life expectancy; same with having suicidal thoughts. Not to mention that you seemingly have no idea what diabetology even is, but I'll let that slide.

His proposed solution is to let people decide what's best for themselves. He never mentions denying anybody anything, nor does what he proposes in any way akin to what you think it is akin to. What the medical community (which is almost never in unanimous agreement on anything) thinks is unhealthy is entirely inconsequential to what a person thinks is best for themselves. Telling a person that if they have suicidal thoughts, the correct course of action is to act upon them, instead of seeing a mental health professional immediately is dangerously irresponsible at best. "Actively denying painkillers from a person who is in agony" was indeed a bad analogy; it's more akin to putting a gun in arm's reach to a person who can barely move and is in unspeakable agony while informing them that they can find painkillers on the 10th floor if they don't mind having to take the stairs. To me, the idea that constant, "at times excruciating" pain is less impairing to one's cognitive abilities than the effect of most (non-restricted) painkillers is ridiculous, but each to his own, I guess.

Examples? I refuse to think that you need examples of obvious statements about obedient societies that blindly follow their superiors without any self conscious reflections leading to disasters. They teach that in school on history and we have numerous examples basically every day on the news. What I do need is examples that our society has more problems with people not acting on what they think is right than with people who do act on what they think is right (and are wrong about it). Can't help but think that you're very optimistic in assuming that people whose beliefs, when acted upon, would result in a positive change outnumber people whose beliefs, when acted upon, would result in a negative change. And how do you know it's worse? Do you have any experience in being fat and being dead? Probably no. I support anyone who made a conscious decision about improving their life. Even if they believe it means ending their life. I'm definitely not fit to tell people what is best for them, that's the domain of fascist, communists and other socialist. It's a very nice sentiment, but having suicidal thoughts is generally thought of in the medical community as unhealthy in itself; hence, your proposed solution is more akin to denying painkillers from a person who's in obvious agony, then going "ah well, I guess it couldn't be helped; he made his decision for himself, and who am I to take this right from him?" when he decides to end his suffering. It's an exceedingly hypocritical idea. Close-ish. There are various rather involved reward mechanisms related to (over)consumption of food.

Well now we have a dysfunctional society of people that don't act upon what they think and refuse to act even on the behalf of things they think are right. Some people even refuse to admit to the things they really think and just say and do the society dictates them. Examples? Because history is full of examples where people acting on their actual, sincere beliefs and out of an honest effort to make the world a better place resulted in unspeakable atrocities? But, to take less of a big-picture view, even on the micro scale, when somebody's actual, sincere belief is that it would be just better to die, acting on it results in them being dead, which is pretty much objectively worse than being fat and continuing to live. ...Very bad because? It's like you have some sort of an idea behind making sweeping statements like this, but no arguments to back it up.

I don't know of any cultural attitudes that are genetically hardwired. This gives a vastly higher probability to my "speculation", as you call it, being right.

Well, basically, there is quite a bit of research showing that people can and do display racist/sexist attitudes even when they themselves are unaware of the fact that they're doing so and are horrified upon learning that they did; it's purely a wild assumption on my part that it's probably a result of culture rather than genetically coded into us in the deepest level. (A wild assumption supported by the fact that attitudes in general are rarely hardwired, but still.)

So basically you value your abstract principle of "people should act upon the things they're thinking" (which is weird in itself; I'm pretty sure we'd have an extremely dysfunctional society if people just acted on every idea that jumped into their minds) over people's lives, if I'm understanding you correctly.

Who's this "everyone else"? Me: if your peer group finds a particular phrase distasteful, you might want to value their sensibilities over your freedom to say whatever you want. You: NO. If my feelings are not more important to them, then their feelings are not more important to me. I took the liberty of assuming if you're not even willing to do this for your friends, you're even less likely to do it for anyone else. Do correct me if I'm wrong. Well, there is a diffrenece between well paid job you want to keep (or need) and friends you can choose completely freely, dont you think? Irrelevant to the discussion at hand; ie. someone who keeps his mouth shut out of a desire to keep his job isn't doing it because he finds his co-workers' feelings more important than his own.

Me? I'm not the one thinking they should die and that they are worthless. When did I became a part of the original scenario posted by TrueNeutral? No, you're the one thinking the correct response to them seeing a fit person is to kill themselves. Correct response would be acting on that response not only think it. I even asked you for clarification on the issue. You mean searching for a suitable hole and dying in it while ruminating on one's worthlessness? Yes that is exactly whay I mean.

Correct response would be acting on that response not only think it. You mean searching for a suitable hole and dying in it while ruminating on one's worthlessness? Yes that is exactly whay I mean. Could you please provide a justification for wishing death on people for the crime of being fat? Do note the study I linked earlier. It shows that on average, about 20-30% of the original weight loss is sustained by the end of a five-year-long period. And this is for people who had medical supervision.

So basically you are of the mind that your feelings are more important than anyone else's feelings. I, personally, find that an exceedingly selfish and immature attitude, but if you feel like adhering to it makes your life better, I won't try to convince you of the benefits afforded by the alternative. Who's this "everyone else"? Me: if your peer group finds a particular phrase distasteful, you might want to value their sensibilities over your freedom to say whatever you want. You: NO. If my feelings are not more important to them, then their feelings are not more important to me. I took the liberty of assuming if you're not even willing to do this for your friends, you're even less likely to do it for anyone else. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

Correct response would be acting on that response not only think it. You mean searching for a suitable hole and dying in it while ruminating on one's worthlessness?

Well, a meta-analysis of 29 studies does seem to hint at the odds being severely against one who wants to maintain weight loss in the long term: But as you can see, the meme of "people will unavoidably regain all weight lost and then some" is pretty much false.

I generally find looking at actions in terms of a power exchange with the people I'm supposedly chill with... unproductive, to say the least.

I'd hardly consider "maybe choosing my words a bit more carefully when I'm around them" the same as "rolling over for them". I mean, you're willing to do the same in your workplace to look professional, why wouldn't you do it for your friends?

Ah, okay, I think I see what you're concerned about now. It would indeed be exceedingly unwise to implement "political correctness" on a society-wide scale, because it's a paradigm that can go wrong myriads of ways (just like unbridled freedom of speech can), and until we test in a micro scale how this happens and whether the associated benefits outweigh the losses, there is simply no reliable way to tell whether it's objectively better or not. But in order to do this testing, we need suitable micro-environments where it can take place. Even if a/ the likelihood of achieving success with that course of action is minuscule (because people in general are supremely irrational beings, see my earlier comments about the need of familiarizing oneself with cognitive sciences), and b/ allowing that opinion to fester is believed by the person in question to cause measurable (if very small) harm in the macro scale? So basically you are of the mind that your feelings are more important than anyone else's feelings. I, personally, find that an exceedingly selfish and immature attitude, but if you feel like adhering to it makes your life better, I won't try to convince you of the benefits afforded by the alternative. May I suggest you dial back on the condescension (my feelings are being hurt by your insinuations that I'm ignorant and uneducated )? A more fruitful discussion would be had if, even if you are unwilling/unable to produce a complete dissertation expanding on your very interesting comments about structural racism, at least you gave a few references to literature, articles or even specific authors to start with, for those of us keen on learning more about how that actually works. No condescension was meant; I quite literally don't have the time at the moment to do the digging required to acquire and present all relevant studies I've read that contributed to me finally becoming convinced that actually, the science seems to support the - on the face ridiculous - statements feminists tend to make. It was a synthetic process and I didn't save any of the studies I came across (and there was quite a large number of them). If you're willing to overlook the fact that it makes no mention of feminism at all (and therefore, on the face, has no bearing on the subject), Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow is a nice introduction to the idea that human beings are not rational, and cultural conditioning does affect decision-making unless constant effort is made to supervise your impulses. Its best feature is that it's very thoroughly indexed, so you can do some digging regarding the individual studies on your own (assuming you have access to the relevant journals they were published in). Well, I've watched some of those videos, and the funny thing about them is that they have the common thread of being completely reasonable and fact-based up to, say, 80% of their runtime, then they take those facts and do some incredible mental gymnastics to have them point to something completely unrealistic. It's like the people who made them have never heard of Occam's Razor or the principle of "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence". As a citizen of a postcommunist state, I'm obviously not an expert on how things work in the western world. Thankfully, I never claimed otherwise. Truer words have never been spoken, on both accounts.

I have no idea why people think that freedom of speech means people should be protected from the consequences of their actions. If you take a giant, steaming dump right on the top of your desk at work, you can rightfully expect to be fired. Making openly racist and sexist remarks is pretty much the societal equivalent of taking a giant, steaming dump right on the top of your desk. It's okay if you do it in private as long as you don't brag about it openly, but frowned upon in public. Trying to censor someone IS an action with consequences too. "Racist" and "sexist" is thought policing and deplorable too. Two wrongs don't make a right. Do elaborate.

Well, you could start by reading up on cognitive science; knowing how the human brain works is a fairly useful skillset to have anyway.

Your wants in this matter are sadly irrelevant to me. The definition works for every purpose except rules-lawyering the **** out of it in an attempt to prove that political correctness is, ultimately, evil incarnate Even if an arbiter of political correctness deems that despite what you think is completely reasonable is actually an "-ism" because someone you don't know thought of it as that "-ism" and took offense. That's pretty much the thinking man's sado-masochism to me. Solution: you listen to them explain why they feel you've wronged them. If their argument holds water, you apologize and make a mental note not to repeat what you did, because even if you think it's stupid, their feelings are more important to you than your freedom to use certain words (hell, I know I have a hard time cutting back on my usage of "Jesus ****ing Christ" and "retarded", but I still do it because members of my peer group find them tasteless). If their company is less valuable to you than your freedom to cuss as much as you want, however you want, you simply let them drop out of your life. Easy as that.

...Said he, amply demonstrating why micro-agressions are so damn hard to deal with. Racism as an ideology marginalized ? Sure thing. But even you've now shifted the definition, it's still just a word to cudgel you with some times. The extent of your lack of empathy never fails to amaze me.

Racism as an ideology is pretty much marginalized into irrelevance. Racism as an institution, an emergent property of cultural inertia? Very much alive and kicking. What? And this is why I don't do these discussions nowadays. You not being up-to-date with decades' worth of research into cognitive science is not something I can correct during the course of a random internet conversation.

Your wants in this matter are sadly irrelevant to me. The definition works for every purpose except rules-lawyering the **** out of it in an attempt to prove that political correctness is, ultimately, evil incarnate

Racism as an ideology is pretty much marginalized into irrelevance. Racism as an institution, an emergent property of cultural inertia? Very much alive and kicking.