Diet and exercise alone are no cure for obesity, experts say

[Malcador]

I thought the core problem with them was that it all just boiled down to "**** you, I got mine".

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I thought the core problem with them was that it all just boiled down to "**** you, I got mine".

 

...That too.

[Blarghagh]

 

Ron Swanson disapproves.

[Nonek]

A little too easy and quite frankly distasteful to blame a class of untermencsh for societies problems in my opinion, and all too frequently done by those whom believe they are superior. I know that this is a timeless passtime, but I still find it extremely uncomfortable and would argue that a little self reflection is warranted, we are all human and flawed, and even if we travel in anothers shoes we have no right to judge them anymore than they do us.

[Gromnir]

seems that willpower v. weight gain is no longer the issue, eh?

 

we will make one observation, 'cause it were seeming too ridiculous to let slide.  we saw anecdote wherein a person stated that they didn't take pain killers to avoid cognitive impairment.  from personal perspective, and from what little scholarly work we has seen, few things impair judgment and cognition as much as does pain.  we has seen more than a few folks die, and a too many o' them suffered significant pain in the months, weeks, days and hours leading up to their death.  as an observer, am not certain we can choose between pain and fear as to which we believe is more debilitating on the mind and spirit o' the afflicted. am aware that nimh and other organizations has published studies on pain and cognition, but we clear have little expertise in the field, and we wish to God we had less experience.  

 

oh sure, clear there is potential impairment o' cognition from a variety o' painkillers, but am thinking that it should be obvious that pain also impairs cognition and judgement. am not suggesting that anybody in pain should have decisions taken out o' their metaphorical hands 'cause o' impaired judgement, so let's not pretend we made such a claim.  regardless, it would be foolhardy to suggest that pain, particular chronic pain suffered over a considerable amount o' time, does not impair cognition and judgement. the folks who avoid any and all painkillers to escape mental impairment are likely working at cross-purposes from what they intended. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 20, 2015 by Gromnir

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

...What do you think has led to it escalating in the first place?

People like you that think people have no law to decide for themselves and need to be governed throughout their lives and if they don't obey they should be put to place by force.

 

 

 

I love how this accusation has no relation to anything I ever said, but even if we disregard that, I think we can all agree that people who "think people have no law to decide for themselves and need to be governed throughout their lives and if they don't obey they should be put to place by force" are acting on what they're thinking, once again proving that "people doing things instead of thinking about doing things" is at least as likely to be a source of problems as the opposite.

 

 

 

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.

Two can play this game. Unless you can prove that if everyone acts on their believes most people would impact the world negatively then your statement is just a pile of your stinking verbal diarrhea and not a fact. 

 

 

 

Would be a valid line of argument if I was arguing for "most people acting on their beliefs will, without a doubt, make the world a worse place". But if you read back, you'll see I did no such thing; I merely pointed out that it's an exceedingly optimistic attitude to assume that all the world's wrongs would be magically corrected if people just took action, and it relies on the idea that there are more people whose workings would do good than the opposite. Which I find statistically unlikely.

 

 

  

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.

English is not my native language. I mixed up two names, not a big deal I admit that. It doesn't change the fact that this branch would fall off in favor of surgery, so I will stay skeptic and label that topic as a competition between two medical branches.

 

 

 

English is not my native language either; I still know the difference between the two, because I am studying medicine, unlike you. Hence, I feel like I am a bit more qualified to make statements about the wider medical community than you are. I would not presume to know more about selling large volumes of cargo than you do; it would be nice if you could extend the same courtesy towards me in my area of expertise.

 

 

 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.

So by your logic if human beings are not rational actors motivated purely by enlightened self-interest then no one should in their right mind act on your advice's because you are a human being!

 

 

 

Well, if I were a rational being purely motivated by enlightened self-interest, then people should act on my advice even less, shouldn't they? After all, enlightened self-interest would require me to ensure I have as little competition as possible, which is the easiest to achieve by keeping other people in the dark regarding the ways of enlightened self-interest; handing out good advice on the matter would rather run counter to that purpose, wouldn't it?

 

 

 

I always find it funny when the same people that claims that human beings are unfit to make good decisions place themselves (a representative of this bad decision making race) as people in charge who will make rational, motivated purely by enlightened self-interest decisions.

 

 

 

Rational thinking is a skill that can be learned.

 

I would indeed not entrust important decision-making to people who are not consciously aware of their own biases and how they shape the way they're thinking, but then again, I'd also not entrust the task of, say, growing crops to a tailor. That's not me oppressing tailors, that's me pointing out that tasks should be done by people who are more likely to achieve a fruitful outcome at them.

 

That said, the idea of appointing an anointed decision-maker class that's above the unwashed masses to guide them because they're too stupid to make choices on their own is also undesirable (due to this approach being counter-productive, not to mention immoral).

 

It's also worth considering whether it's a good idea at all to place people who are solely motivated by self-interest in charge; I'm leaning towards "**** no".

 

 

 

Human beings are perfectly capable of making decisions about themselves they see fit. This can, and of course will, lead to making decisions that other people consider bad or unfit. But those people are not the ones making the decision so they have no authority to force any decision on someone else. 

 

 

 

Human beings have a right to make informed decisions.

 

By encouraging people to make a decision, any decision, with the only criterion being them making said decision instead of reviewing all options at their perusal, you're effectively decreasing the amount of options they have at hand, and therefore, their freedom.

Edited February 20, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Zoraptor]

Aren't sub-saharan blacks the ones most prone to get overweight? Or maybe they digest the sugar differently than other races, who knows.

 

Don't know about sub Saharan Africans (the sugar digestion thing may well be lactose intolerance, which would actually lower weight gain from dairy foods and is highly prevalent in African genomes as well as fairly common in Asians) but Polynesians are certainly very prone to getting overweight, due to their historic diet being both very low in fat and having deprivation cycles from being on isolated islands; so the ability to put on fat as efficiently as possible in the good times is crucial. Here Polynesians are highly represented in poorer sections of society and thus tend towards eating fast or convenience foods a lot- which is bad for everyone if done too much but is particularly bad for them. Plus, due to the historic issues fat people are seen as being higher class, as previous only the very powerful got excess food.

 

It's ironic though, because Polynesians tend to be extremely good at sports and extremely fit, so long as they control their diet.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

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.

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.

 

 

 

Tons of pain, excruciating at times really. I only ever took one Advil to shut my mother up who was driving me nuts telling me I needed pain killers. Why? As bad as the pain was, I wanted 100% of my cognitive abilities

 

Boy you like to go to extremes and respond to things people never even said.

 

Somehow we got to a whole bunch of suicide talk in a thread about exercise. Most of which has been totally unconstructive.

 

Now, on the issue of suicide. No, it is absolutely not 'dangerously irresponsible' not to tell someone who has suicidal thoughts to see a 'mental health professional' immediately. Like a great many other things, something like dealing with someone who has suicidal thoughts is entirely situational in regards to what the best course(s) of action is/are. Jumping the gun and calling the goon squad more often than not is going to cause far more harm than good. That said, if one's experience and imagination is so limited that one thinks that calling the goon squad is always the best course of action, I'm certainly not going to be able to convince one otherwise on an internet forum board. But I certainly hope that one's experience and imagination leads one to realize greater things in the long run. I also hope for the sake of anyone who might be suicidal that they have better options of people to turn to than someone who will flip and call the goons right away.

 

That said, I hope we can let the suicide talk in the exercise thread come to an end.

 

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.

 

 

To be clear, while I mentioned Advil, I was referring to what are generally controlled substances when I was speaking of painkillers. Taking an Advil for the kind of injury I had is akin to putting a Band-Aid on a shark bite. It's efficacy is nil.

 

However, apparently you either have not experienced excruciating pain, or you've always been quick to pop the painkiller pills. Suggesting that one would suffer any real cognitive impairment from an injury to one of their limbs that will heal in time really just demonstrates you have no experience with such things and/or grossly misinterpret what you've seen in your life. What's ridiculous is the notion that one could suffer cognitive impairment from not taking pain killers for such an injury. While out of the ~6 billion humans on earth I imagine there's a few that are wired in a way that this would happen, the overwhelming majority are not.

 

In most cases, as time goes on, one learns to live with pain, be it physical, mental, or spiritual, if one doesn't run from it. And it usually doesn't take that much time to get used to if the origin of the pain is physical (like less than 24 hours max for most traumatic injuries). The fad these days for many is to not want to deal with pain, be it physical, mental, or spiritual. Hence the plethora of peoples out there popping pain killers and/or psychotropics. That many doctors and 'mental health professionals' in the west generally work for big pharma and are often little more than drug pushers doesn't help.

 

There are a myriad of ailments and pains one might go through, and different people have different levels of constitution, fortitude, and thresholds of pain they can deal with. Key, generally speaking, is not to focus on it. A lot of people focus on their pain, whatever the origin of it, and let it consume them. This is especially true with non-physical pains. Are there pains that one cannot get used to? Sure there are, but they are exceptional. Possible for everyone to potentially one day experience (theoretically we can all get stomach cancer or suffer burns over most of our body), but most get to live their lives from beginning to end without experiencing such a debilitating thing.

 

Anon. 

[Valsuelm]

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

Did I read this wrong or did you really mean to say that it's usually the case in your experience that overweight people are cognitively impaired?

 

I'm going to skip addressing your comments on suicide other than repeat what I already said in another post: what the best thing to do is entirely situational.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

Who on earth knows better than adult person X what's good for adult person X other than adult person X? By your logic is laughable that adult person X knows what's good for themselves. How on earth, if no one knows what's good for themselves can anyone possibly know what's good for someone else?

 

Either you're really not explaining yourself well, or the cognitive research you hold in such high regard is bunk (or at least your interpretation of it is).

[213374U]

Did I read this wrong or did you really mean to say that it's usually the case in your experience that overweight people are cognitively impaired?

 

I'm going to skip addressing your comments on suicide other than repeat what I already said in another post: what the best thing to do is entirely situational.

Well, you didn't completely read it wrong, but in the case of overweight people, it's more a matter of people not being aware of the different options available to them, and a lack of understanding of the consequences of their common habits and lifestyles. Under these circumstances, it is simply not possible to make informed decisions, i.e. person X really can't know what's good for themselves because they don't have some basic facts down. Again, this is from my personal experience working in the fitness industry. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, yadda, yadda.

 

The cognitive impairment part of the comment was more directed at "letting people choose for themselves", which is, again, something I'm very much for. So while relevant to your comment in a general sense, may not apply in this particular context. That said, I'm told that extremely obese people have serious confidence and self-control issues, as well as an installed feeling of hopelessness that may very well interfere with their decision-making processes. Not to mention people who are obese because food is a coping mechanism for something else, etc. I really can't speak about that because I've never worked with someone like that, though.

Edited February 21, 2015 by 213374U

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

Who on earth knows better than adult person X what's good for adult person X other than adult person X? 

 

 

Yes, people retroactively regretting their choices or thinking they were behaving like idiots and, with their newfound hindsight, would take a different course of action is completely unheard of and not at all an integral part of growing up.

 

(Not to even mention the countless number of seemingly-innocuous and absolutely trivial ways people's decision-making can be manipulated. But surely that's because they're Untermensch and Wusses Who'd Rather Take Painkillers Instead Of Toughing It Out Like Real Men.)

Edited February 21, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[JadedWolf]

So guys. The other day I saw this rather chubby looking fellow, and of course I had to remind him of my physical superiority. So I stood in front of him in my best Johnny Bravo pose and told him: "Gaze upon my noble physique and contemplate suicide!". For some reason this dude started laughing, so I told him firmly that this wasn't the correct response and that he should feel bad about himself. Then he told me that he was quite happy with himself, that he had a steady job and a nice girlfriend and that he didn't feel any need to be unhappy. Seriously, the nerve of that guy! I shook my fist at him and left angrily, convinced that something just wasn't quite right in the world.

[Meshugger]

So guys. The other day I saw this rather chubby looking fellow, and of course I had to remind him of my physical superiority. So I stood in front of him in my best Johnny Bravo pose and told him: "Gaze upon my noble physique and contemplate suicide!". For some reason this dude started laughing, so I told him firmly that this wasn't the correct response and that he should feel bad about himself. Then he told me that he was quite happy with himself, that he had a steady job and a nice girlfriend and that he didn't feel any need to be unhappy. Seriously, the nerve of that guy! I shook my fist at him and left angrily, convinced that something just wasn't quite right in the world.

 

Not only you had to brag about it in my face, you have to tell it in a public forum as well? What's wrong with you? Just because i called dibs on that girl in our chubby-chaser challenge and you lost doesn't give you the right to be a **** about it. Hopefully there is a law somewhere that Gromnir can dig up that makes it possible to sue you for ungood feel. Either that or i will have you declared mentally unfit for society based on medical terms. Trust me, i have connections to the highest echelons at the local university's cognitive science department and they *will* vouch for me, just you wait. You will burn. You will know pain. Not that it matters, because you will just try to hide it by munching painkillers.

 

Just do it. Have an Aspirin. Eat the pain away, EAT IT!

Edited February 21, 2015 by Meshugger

[aluminiumtrioxid]

i will have you declared mentally unfit for society based on medical terms. 

 

I can sense an intent to create pointed satire, it just... points nowhere.

 

Puzzling.

[Meshugger]

 

i will have you declared mentally unfit for society based on medical terms. 

 

I can sense an intent to create pointed satire, it just... points nowhere.

 

Puzzling.

 

 

One, two, three. Just do after me: laugh.  

[213374U]

Where in the statement: You should act on what you think is right and what you believe in.

Will we find:

1. Until you succeed.

2. Repeat your attempt never changing your approach.

3. kill yourself if you fail.

 

I don't see those points in this statement. You, AGAIN, added them up to give yourself something to attack, which to those who can recognize the tactic and raises suspicions that you are covering a hole in your argument.

 

Again, I am sorry if you can't follow the consequences, implications, or even the context of what you are saying. "Acting on what you think is right", while at first glance may sound like great life advice to make motivational Facebook pics with, is actually useless as far as any real world application is concerned, and in the scope of this discussion, is especially insidious because it suggests that people can be separated in two categories: those who merely think, and those who also act (in which conveniently, of course, you fall). I already explained to you why I reached these conclusions, but worry not, I am happy to try again:

 

(1) is a natural implication of any sort of advice. I've never heard anyone giving out advice that is openly inteded to cause the recipient to fail or quit. Until now, I guess?

(3) is your fault, actually. You were replying to a post of someone else's that was talking about how someone's psychological response can drive them to consider suicide due to not believing they can do anything else. Your reply said that "thinking" about it was incorrect and they should do it.

 

I left (2) for last, because it's the crux and requires the most explaining. As illustrated by the chart posted aluminiumtrioxid and my own comments (though I didn't actually post any statistics), the problem isn't that most people don't do anything about it, it's that they actually fail at some point, because they lack the necessary tools to reach their goals and stay there. So at that point, some people have already tried, failed (often several times), and are driven to grief, self-hatred, hopelessness, etc. If they continue to act on what they believe, they must kill themselves. This was a hypothetic case brought up by TrueNeutral, but it's what you replied to. Try and keep up, will you?

 

And by the way, the tactic you are accusing me of is called strawmanning. It's not used to cover holes in one's argument, but to discredit an opponent by misrepresenting their stance into one that is easier to attack. That's not quite what I'm doing — I'm simply taking the "reasoning" to its logical conclusion. That you didn't consider where your arguments lead before running your mouth isn't my problem. You have had several opportunities to clarify what exactly you meant, but you haven't actually done so, settling merely for complaining repeatedly that you are being misrepresented. What exactly were you trying to suggest? Do you even know?

 

 

 

 

No it doesn't. If I was an agent of secret agency I couldn't answer honestly your question "what you do to make society better" as I wouldn't be allowed by other factors. This would not mean I don't follow my advice it just would mean I cannot talk about it. This was what I meant by my statement.

You missed the point. It's not that you can't talk about how you follow your own advice because you are James Bond. It's that you cannot possibly follow your own advice because it's unrealistic; it's not advice. It's feel-good mumbo jumbo designed to feed your übermensch fantasies. On second thought however, I may have been wrong. Hypocrite is he who chooses not to follow his own advice when applicable. I think the proper term for someone who heartily hands out and believes in advice that cannot be followed is... insane.

 

 

 

And why would I kill myself if I failed? By MY statement after a failure I will do what I think is right in this situation. I will not think about suicide so I will not commit one, most probably I will think I should change my approach or reflect on what gone wrong. So there goes your theory out of the window.

That's great, but this thread isn't about you not considering suicide if you fail — it's about overweight people. You made the discussion into hopeless overweight people with deep self-esteem issues that can drive them to consider suicide because that is what you were replying to. Now, and to complete the analogy, if you repeatedly fail and are driven to considering suicide, will you kill yourself? Do you believe that is rational?

 

 

 

And if you fail will you kill yourself?

Fail at what? Making a fool of myself? I have the method down, thanks. But if I need any pointers, I'll be sure to ask.

 

(you may have missed the part where I AM ACTUALLY CONTESTING YOUR INSANE SUGGESTION THAT PEOPLE KILL THEMSELVES WHEN THEY FAIL, that is, the last three pages. No, I will not kill myself.)

 

 

How is it exactly? Maybe I'm not an expert on the subject, but how does overweight neglects people from having absolutely unimpaired cognitive abilities or being aware of all available alternatives? I'm not familiar with the studies that shown correlation between overweight and brain functions.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2009.172809

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14504119

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2008.00473.x/abstract;jsessionid=E86FA7D40CB082380B705FE737A92F02.f01t01

 

Yes, that you aren't an expert is abundantly clear at this point. I dug that up in literally five minutes. Just Google "obesity comorbidity" and start reading up.

 

I don't need to prove that overweight people don't have all the relevant information because that's the default state for everyone, including overweight people, unless they have devoted significant resources and time into this matter, just like everyone's default state is not knowing how to fly an airliner or what beta decay is.

 

 

Also I distinctively used the phrase: "I support anyone who made a conscious decision about improving their life." So not only you add things to what people say you deliberately leave things out and then point those things should be taken in to consideration.

Ah, yes. The famous "rational suicide". Even if we accept such a thing as possible, it's outside of the scope of this discussion, because the right to die is brought up in cases of terminal illness, extreme pain, brain death, tetraplegia, that sort of thing. Obesity doesn't fit these criteria. "bluh bluh bluh but if someone chooses to die you must let them" — from an ethical pov, I agree. From a practical one, it's never that simple.

 

 

Again that is your sole opinion, you have no proof of that statement.

I'm sorry, do I need to provide formal proof of each rebuttal to your non-arguments? It is you who needs to prove that death is a solution to any problem.

 

PROTIP: You can't. Death is a non-solution because it removes the subject from the sentence "I have a problem". The problem isn't addressed at all, it simply no longer applies because the subject has ceased to exist. When faced with an irresoluble problem that simply cannot be allowed to continue, removing the subject may be the last resort, but only if all other possible solutions have been attempted previously. This is the equivalent of you telling someone with eyesight problems to keep their eyes closed. Seriously, don't quit your day job.

 

 

 

So basically your point of view is people should not do anything themselves but seek guidance and support. But my very logical friend answer me this: if all people will seek guidance and support then who will give guidance and support?

Brace yourself now. I am going to introduce you to a revolutionary concept that will surely blow you away. Behold!

 

 

(shamelessly stolen from Google Images. Sue me)

 

Imagine that each figure in that image receives help from the one to their right. They are both giving... and receiving... at the same time! Incredible, I know. But it gets better, I've spoken to a shrink that admitted to needing help from other shrink. OMG shrinkception!

 

 

This goes without saying to intelligent people, but I will put it for you:

By my statement: You should act on what you think is right and what you believe in.

If a person think she/she should seek guidance and help, then by all means they should.

Sadly the problem is that they may not realize that they need help. They may not want to accept it even if they need it for myriad reasons. Case in point, I'm 31 and only recently have received a preliminary ADD diagnosis, and it was only through blind luck. Didn't I ever think I might need help? Was I trying to tough it out? What?

 

Heh.

[Malcador]

So guys. The other day I saw this rather chubby looking fellow, and of course I had to remind him of my physical superiority. So I stood in front of him in my best Johnny Bravo pose and told him: "Gaze upon my noble physique and contemplate suicide!". For some reason this dude started laughing, so I told him firmly that this wasn't the correct response and that he should feel bad about himself. Then he told me that he was quite happy with himself, that he had a steady job and a nice girlfriend and that he didn't feel any need to be unhappy. Seriously, the nerve of that guy! I shook my fist at him and left angrily, convinced that something just wasn't quite right in the world.

TW:fat shaming.

[ManifestedISO]

Better fat than bald.

 

What, no. Though both can be hurtful. We make our own pain or pleasure, either way. 

 

 

[Valsuelm]

Damn you moderators. Damn you, for closing the Gamer Gate thread!

 

It was the best thing to happen in WoT in the last year. It kept the trolls busy.

 

[Meshugger]

I'm a bit confused. Are we talking about the moral obligation that a person has to help people with mental problems and vice versa or are talking about the legality of the state declaring people insane or not? Because the former is as old as humanity itself while the other is a modern invention often championed by the intelligentia.

[teknoman2]

the first step for a divorce is marriage 

when i stopped living with my mother i lost 20kg (about 45lbs) in 5 months without even exercising, just by changing the food. you see the fact that obesity sticks like superglue is true. food is like a drug and while i was with my mother there was always something to eat in reach so no matter how much i tried i ended up eating a bit of this and a bit of that all day long. when i left i simply made sure not to have anything around that can be eaten uncooked. so having to cook stuff, made it impossible to eat at the first sign of hunger and thus eat outside meal times. of course the feeling of hunger is unbearable at times but most times im not hungry but my stomach was used to be constantly full and now cant stand to be half empty

[Volourn]

"Damn you moderators. Damn you, for closing the Gamer Gate thread!

 

It was the best thing to happen in WoT in the last year. It kept the trolls busy.

 

"

 

Agreed, you seem to be trolling every thread. Why is that?

 

 

Diets and exercise is a joke. I have a horrible diet and I don't excersise, and I'm nowhere near fat. LMAO

[Malcador]

"Damn you moderators. Damn you, for closing the Gamer Gate thread!

 

It was the best thing to happen in WoT in the last year. It kept the trolls busy.

 

"

 

Agreed, you seem to be trolling every thread. Why is that?

 

 

Diets and exercise is a joke. I have a horrible diet and I don't excersise, and I'm nowhere near fat. LMAO

Just because you are the Master Race, doesn't mean no one else needs it.

[Hurlshort]

 

"Damn you moderators. Damn you, for closing the Gamer Gate thread!

 

It was the best thing to happen in WoT in the last year. It kept the trolls busy.

 

"

 

Agreed, you seem to be trolling every thread. Why is that?

 

 

Diets and exercise is a joke. I have a horrible diet and I don't excersise, and I'm nowhere near fat. LMAO

Just because you are the Master Race, doesn't mean no one else needs it.

 

 

Yikes, I almost missed that gem with Volo on ignore!

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume most of us know that you can be skinny and still be in terrible health.