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

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

It's up to them. People know how much info they need to make decision. If they think "I need more" then keep gathering if they think "that is enough" then thats enough.

 

 

I think you are very much of the mind that people should be free to **** up their own lives. Which, I guess, is certainly a point of view.

 

But you seem to be going for more than this: you think that people have a moral obligation to **** up their lives if it seems like a good idea to them at the moment. What advantage is gained by this (both for the individual, and on a more generalized, societal level)?

Edited February 23, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[213374U]

Oh, and please elaborate on how being passive and not acting is always wrong. Repetition of a baseless statement does not magically turn it into an ironclad argument.

Unlike you, I actually give reasoned argumentations of my points. They aren't ironclad... and I'm giving you the opportunity to address the whole paragraph you were quoting instead of just going off on a tangent about the last sentence. Here, try again:

 

Any "life coach"? Funny, the coaches I've met are more interested in dealing with specific problems and offering experience-based advice than vague grandiloquent statements about success and failure. You must be speaking about the Facebook variant of "life coaches". Or perhaps the pseudoscience peddlers you can find in NLP seminars. It's irrelevant though, as you simply cannot prove that "any life coach would X".

 

I agree, trial and error is an essential part of the learning process. You may have missed the part where implementing suicide prevents you from learning anything else, though.

 

 

Yes i was replying to TN post. And in THAT case acting on what the person thought was suicide, but you made a generalization that somehow I said that suicide is an answer in every case. And I didn't said that.

I did no such thing. It's good that you have finally understood that we are discussing obese people with suicidal tendencies, though. Now, how is suicide an objective solution to obesity? Because, you know, people may be entitled to make a decision, but that doesn't automatically mean they are making the right decision.

 

 

 

 

The issue is with the reasons that drive someone to "quit" or "stop carrying". The idea that people may think it's right to quit and ACTUALLY being right can only stand with perfect free will and omniscience as premises. But then, there are those who have them, and there are those who don't, right? And those who don't end up killing themselves because hey, "that is the way of things". Some are weak, some are strong, some will die and you don't really give a flying ****. **** happens, right?

Exactly.

 

Wow, you really are a class act, aren't you? Let me ask you though: if you don't give a **** what happens to such people, what are you doing in this thread? Why are you offering advice on how such people should act?

 

 

 

Evidence based stuff? That's funny coming from you when you toss stuff and personal believes that you have no evidence off.

Yep. Evidence such as the article in the OP, the chart aluminiumtrioxid posted, the studies I linked to, etc. That's what we are discussing, but you keep insisting that your objectivist wet dreams are more relevant... or something.

 

 

Your explaining and links are not relevant or completely off topic. Like your link to depression to back up your claim that fat people are mentally ill. Just because you wrote something or linked doesn't make it right and relevant.

How is it off-topic? Please explain how three articles studying the relationship between obesity and mental health (one of them focusing on dementia) are irrelevant in a discussion about obesity... and mental faculties. It gets better, because you asked for "the studies that shown correlation between overweight and brain functions", which took me a full five minutes to dig up. Then you start crying that they are not relevant.

 

Do try to be a bit more subtle with your strawmanning. I already said I don't mean to imply that obese people are mentally ill. You are conflating correlation and causality. As I said, science doesn't work that way. Pay attention, please.

 

 

 

Who said I will never think that? Is that one of your evidence based stuff?

I'm not a fortuneteller and don't know the future.

I said "That doesn't mean I will" not "I will not".

You have a real problem with reading stuff that is not written.

As a matter of fact, you did say it:

 

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, yeah, it is evidence-based. Inasmuch as your pathetic internet tough guy talk can be considered "evidence", anyway.

[213374U]

 

Nope, still never said that. Another of your evidence based stuff?

Pretty much, yeah:

 

It's your fault for trying to add something in my statement that wasn't there. It's not working

You should act on what you think is right and what you believe in. That is still my original statement no matter how many times you will try to change it. If you think suicide is right and you believe that then by all means do it.

Remember, this was in response to somebody suggesting that people are driven to suicide out of desperation.

 

 

I don't believe it, there is actually something trying to force it way through your mind.

You don't believe what? This sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense. What is something trying to force through my mind? Try again, please.

 

 

 

Yes, IF a person think they should with no doubt commit suicide then by all means they should. That was all I said and that is one logical conclusion from my statement you managed to make on the last few pages. Congrats.

And if you read carefully, I haven't actually disagreed with this. I only suggest that people have been informed of all possible alternatives to death and can make the decision freely, fully in possession of their mental faculties. Whether this is the case for people with obesity is up for debate.

 

 

 

Cry me a river.

I really don't care about your opinion on my empathy or lack of it, or if you consider something I said terrible or not... but you, talking about logic? Please.

Damn. You really are scary. If I was a pre-pubescent girl. And didn't know that behind every internet tough guy there is a sad, afraid little man.

 

 

Example:

1st Person have 100% of all relevant information and wants to commit suicide - 213374U claims that his decision is wrong because he doesn't have all the information.

 

2nd Person have 0.000001% of all relevant information and claims suicide is not the answer - 213374U claims that person have all the information in the world.

 

So basically the amount of information is irrelevant to you. What is relevant to you is the person making the decision you claim are right. You are just full of yourself and think you have all the correct answers in the world. You think that somehow you have the right to decide for people what is right for them.

That is a really nice dictatorship mentality.

Nope.

 

The fallacy lies with you assuming that obese people choosing suicide have 100% of relevant information and 100% unimpaired mental faculties. "They should just go ahead because they chose it and they know what's good for themselves", right?

 

I already provided evidence and self-evident facts (people don't generally know about medicine and sports science unless they study medicine and sports science) to cast doubt on that assumption. I threw in some personal experience for good measure. Your counter so far has simply amounted to circular logic (If a person decides to commit suicide it's their decision) and dogma (Human beings are perfectly capable of making decisions about themselves they see fit).

 

As I said, Don Quixote, I don't want to decide for anybody. I'm not the one running for office, remember?

 

 

 

"the button you want reads "start new topic" - If I could just remember who said that...

Done and done. I eagerly await your explanation.

 

 

 

Sorry, I don't see it. Let's see if I will in practice, I will PM you my bank account number.

Oh, wow. Such sharp wit. You bad boy, you. I bet the ladies love it... in all of that fantastical kingdom you have built up in your mind.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

[213374U]

^ If only it was like that IRL.

[Woldan]

^ If only it was like that IRL.

Being female?

Edited February 23, 2015 by Woldan

[Meshugger]

 

She has the cutest smile that i've seen in a while. Normal body weight also, that's a plus.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I think you are very much of the mind that people should be free to **** up their own lives. Which, I guess, is certainly a point of view.

 

But you seem to be going for more than this: you think that people have a moral obligation to **** up their lives if it seems like a good idea to them at the moment. What advantage is gained by this (both for the individual, and on a more generalized, societal level)?

The advantage is people decide for themselves. It the biggest advantage you can get - deciding about yourself.

 

 

But you can let people decide for themselves without actively encouraging them to commit suicide.

 

I'll ask again: what advantage is gained by encouraging people having suicidal tendencies to act on those tendencies instead of seeking professional help? Remember: you're not actually forcing anybody to do anything by giving them advice.

Edited February 23, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Valsuelm]

 

 

I think you are very much of the mind that people should be free to **** up their own lives. Which, I guess, is certainly a point of view.

 

But you seem to be going for more than this: you think that people have a moral obligation to **** up their lives if it seems like a good idea to them at the moment. What advantage is gained by this (both for the individual, and on a more generalized, societal level)?

The advantage is people decide for themselves. It the biggest advantage you can get - deciding about yourself.

 

 

But you can let people decide for themselves without actively encouraging them to commit suicide.

 

I'll ask again: what advantage is gained by encouraging people having suicidal tendencies to act on those tendencies instead of seeking professional help? Remember: you're not actually forcing anybody to do anything by giving them advice.

 

 

I missed it. Who in this thread ever said one should encourage someone who is thinking of suicide to commit suicide?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I missed it. Who in this thread ever said one should encourage someone who is thinking of suicide to commit suicide?

 

 

I count "the correct response on part of a person thinking they should commit suicide is to act on it instead of thinking it" as encouraging people who think of suicide to commit suicide.

 

Technically, it's blurring the lines a bit, but I don't think stating "killing yourself is the correct thing to do in this case" is meaningfully different from actively encouraging it. At least from a deontological standpoint.

[Malcador]

Seems to be more encouraging one to follow through with plans.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Seems to be more encouraging one to follow through with plans.

 

Which is why I originally asked the reason why he values the abstract principle of "one should follow through with plans" (as you put it) over human lives, the question which the whole discussion stemmed from.

[Malcador]

Well, planning to do things and not executing is a bad trait to have, though I suppose it is common in many degrees - then again some people don't even bother to plan, heh.  Anyway, for people wanting to kill themselves, I guess, one could respect their commitment even if that does result in their death - always hear arguments on some principles being more important than living.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

Neither. We're talking about whether it's moral to advise somebody who has suicidal thoughts to kill themselves instead of seeking professional help first.

 

 

For me its obvious, we have an absolute moral responsibility as a society to help people who suffer from mental ailments and to ensure they get professional help if they want to kill themselves. And this professional help should be mandatory if they refuse it because someone suffering from some sort of mental issue may not be in the best position to know what's best for them

 

 

There is absolutely nothing moral about what you're saying here. In fact, it's quite evil.

 

 

Evil.....

 

How is getting  people professional psychiatric help evil?

 

 

Getting someone 'professional help' if they wish it is not evil in and of itself. However, you ask a question that does not fully correspond to what you stated.

 

I bolded and underlined for you why what you suggest is evil (TN says it's misguided, and that it may be, but that makes it no less evil; the road to hell is paved with good intentions). The former bolded is a bit complex to explain, especially to a collectivist like yourself as you're steeped in a philosophy that is immoral at it's foundations as it requires force to implement. I'm not writing that book for you, but the very short of it is that society has no moral obligations at all, individuals do or do not (and what those obligations are, are situational). One requires a conscience in order to have morality, society is an abstract and somewhat subjective ideal which has no conscience.

 

That latter is far more straight forward and simple. If you cannot understand what is fundamentally immoral with the latter, you'll never understand the former.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

always hear arguments on some principles being more important than living

 

 

And I think it's not unreasonable to be very suspicious of such sentiments from a utilitarian perspective.

 

 

 

I bolded and underlined for you why what you suggest is evil (TN says it's misguided, and that it may be, but that makes it no less evil; the road to hell is paved with good intentions). The former bolded is a bit complex to explain, especially to a collectivist like yourself as you're steeped in a philosophy that is immoral at it's foundations as it requires force to implement. I'm not writing that book for you, but the very short of it is that society has no moral obligations at all, individuals do or do not (and what those obligations are, are situational). One requires a conscience in order to have morality, society is an abstract and somewhat subjective ideal which has no conscience.

 

 

 

Okay, I'm not sure I understand you. Would a collectivist society be immoral, being built on a philosophy you deem immoral, or would the fact that it's an "abstract and subjective ideal which has no conscience" negate the immorality?

 

Also, immoral based on which ethical system?

[213374U]

 

^ If only it was like that IRL.

Being female?

 

Sitting down eating popcorn, rather.

[Malcador]

And I think it's not unreasonable to be very suspicious of such sentiments from a utilitarian perspective.

Can definitely see some obvious ones, those those are mainly the "pride before life" type. Still, it can be done. Though giving someone a nod for committment when they decided to blow their brains out is like commending one for sticking to the plan to eat at Denny's - appreciation of the execution is separate from an observation of the bad deed.

 

Sitting down eating popcorn, rather.

It ain't easy keeping the kernel fragments out of your gums.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Malcador

[213374U]

Well, planning to do things and not executing is a bad trait to have, though I suppose it is common in many degrees - then again some people don't even bother to plan, heh.  Anyway, for people wanting to kill themselves, I guess, one could respect their commitment even if that does result in their death - always hear arguments on some principles being more important than living.

Oh, come on.

 

If I plan a genocide but I don't follow through with my plans, is it a bad trait to have? If I get jealous at my coworker and plan to make her look bad before the boss but I don't at the last minute, is it a bad trait to have?

 

That sort of general life advice or whatever you want to call it is meaningless, and that's why "acting on what you believe" is useless. Circumstances define if it's good or bad.

 

Personally, you may deeply respect people who commit honor suicides — I'm not sure if you're just playing devil's advocate here. Me, I think it's silly.

[213374U]

Damn. You really are scary. If I was a pre-pubescent girl.

 

Well your mother said that to me just last night.

My... my mom told you that you are a pre-pubescent girl? Was that before or after you asked her to read you Twilight fan fiction?

 

Nevermind... none of my business. I won't judge.

Edited February 23, 2015 by 213374U

[Malcador]

Yep, it is a bad trait to have, it's a quality present in people independent of what they are trying to do. You don't think laziness is a bad trait to have just because a killer with one will kill no one or less, right ?

[213374U]

So, conversely, if one is a well-motivated killer, he should be commended on his diligence? That's... not something I've heard often.

[Malcador]

Well, you could - diligence at a task is easy enough to measure. Not that it somehow offsets everything else as you seem to be thinking.

[Janmanden]

One-liners, I like it. Good work guys. No more of these walls of text about depressing bs that makes me want to kill myself..

[213374U]

Well, you could - diligence at a task is easy enough to measure. Not that it somehow offsets everything else as you seem to be thinking.

No, I'm just trying to decide if doing good (or at least not doing evil) for the wrong reasons is still good. You can't have it both ways — you either define good/bad based on intent, or you define it based on results. Applying the definition selectively leads to paradoxes.

[Malcador]

Well, one's laziness may have a good result but it's not a good thing to have. Not sure it's quality of being 'good' is affected by intent or the result, at least from a detached stance.

 

In any case, I suppose it is a meaningless thing to think about.