ExRx.net

The problem with the "ocean", and considering the number involved, that's not a bad analogy, is that the average person with metabolic syndrome has no idea why. He's following the guidelines and is influenced (brainwashed) by advertising and thinks he's doing things right. (you also have to remember that the "average" person only has an IQ of 100 and half have less than that).

It's really incumbent upon our elected officials to straighten out this mess that they started. We didn't have near the problem before Senator McGovern chaired the first committee to set guidelines. Of course, nutritionists still can not agree on the proper way forward, and most of them do have an IQ over 100.

_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

As usual you make a very good point. A lot of them probably don't know any better. Some people have addictions or addictive behavior associated with food, as well as eating disorders too. Then when they try to do the right thing, they're still doing the wrong thing.

I'd rather somebody steal from me by abusing a system I pay for than by putting a gun to my head.

While violent crime isn't tied exclusively to income inequality, it correlates strongly. I'll take deadbeats lounging in rent-geared-to-income housing on my dime over worrying about my lady walking through the park.

_________________
don't you know there ain't no devil
that's just god when he's drunk

seriously, if that helps you feel comfortable and rationalize it, then that's what I'd go with.

What is this "it" that I'm rationalizing, exactly?

_________________
don't you know there ain't no devil
that's just god when he's drunk

I did not mean rationalize in a negative way.

You see the world from a differnt set of criteria / ethics / experience / other words.

I have spent my entire life in the cold, cold north. It might be a stone's throw away, but boy is it different.

_________________
don't you know there ain't no devil
that's just god when he's drunk

You lack our media exposure; which makes all the difference. Philosophically, conservatives particularly here in the US think that people can be evil, lazy or other undesirable trait in an existential way, and that they have consciously chosen that. They also believe that people ended up where they are in life entirely by their own actions, except in extreme examples. We have a corporate controlled media that feeds people with continuous corporatist and plutocratic propaganda.

For example some have been convinced that the poor are stealing from them. How it works is any redistribution other than income is denied and/or rationalized with laissez faire capitalism disguised as free market. So the poor are where they are due to their own laziness and they are stealing the money of hard working people (hard working is measured by wealth by the way). So therefore any social programs, and most taxation is viewed as a form of theft.

Liberal Media: This is the catch phrase used to stop independent verification, so that what the propagandist says isn't questioned, and is easily accepted anyway due to their frequent use of confirmation bias.

Divisive Social Issues: Social issues and religion are used as political motivation. By mixing in people's fears, and distrust of those who are in some way different (any difference, race, religion, etc), you increase motivation. The divisiveness is important because it increases "us vs them" and reinforces the underlying xenophobia exploited by this technique.

Many people don't question and are distracted by our vapid pop culture. They are also trained to be good docile workers, which is what schools are geared towards. There are of course people like myself who have a big mouth and go around saying crap like this. However as a pro-theft liberal anything I say on this subject is easily dismissed. Social issues are good grounds for being dismissive as well.

The Illusion of Freedom: This is important as it keeps people content, willing to look the other way and even justify civil rights abuses, and be good docile citizens. Business interests work better in a freeish type society too.

So hopefully that gives you some insight on how/why America is how it is.

I like to think that looking after those that can't look after themselves is part of what makes us Canadian. Of course there are always those that will take advantage of the system, but eventually we'll all be in the situation where we need help from others, and I think that it's a reasonable trade off.

_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

Speaking of Canada, happy Canada Day!

Do understand that Ironman (you know I respect you and your opinions) is WAY left on the political spectrum. I can paint with broad brushes, too.

Philisophically, the libs in the US believe every ill in society is due to the rich white man who intentionally go out and take advantage of the poor. So the rich are only that way because the took advantage and stole from the poor so the only fair thing to do is to take from the evil rich and give to the good poor.

See some people have been convinced that the rich are doing nothing more than enslave the poor.

C'mon Ironman... You are starting to sound like Al Sharpton.

_________________
Thanks TimD.

FYI, we Canadians (though not all of us) do not lack your media exposure, and we definitely do not lack the liberal exposure from Hollywood.

I wish I had the language skill of Ironman along with his delusions. I would not try to debate him.

Conservatives here do belive one thing almost universally and that is the suspicion that leftist would actually prefer more folks relied on the government. And by gov't, I mean other people's money.

By the way, I pretty much cant stand conservative talking heads because rather than relying on true principles; they cut off guests and espouse one side. I'm also not for nation building wing of the conservative party.

It woudl be nice if those than can gave enough to the truly needy poor joyfully, so welfare was obsolete. Given we are not doing that; I support some type of assistance. It's degrees and cutoff where I differ. I think if you can work and you dont; you don't get my money, basically. We may have to take your kids.

?? What's up with the 2nd paragraph? Did I misstate something in the corresponding part of my post? Now some of the later stuff I could understand an objection, but not that. Are people not where they are in life by their own faults? Is taxation and social programs not a soft word for theft? That is the point of view I hear from conservatives. I suppose that may not be you,if you are more center-right, but that's the underlying philosophy of the far right.

That said, that paragraph is actually a very good reflection of how the right views things. Come to think of it, I really can't tell how that paragraph doesn't demonstrate what I said.

By the way, in Denmark I would actually be a conservative. I'm far left for America. I'm mainstream liberal for much of Europe, albeit with a more libertarian bent.


Al Sharpton?! Now I'm deeply offended. I am exponentially more intelligent than Al Sharpton.

Oh I see. So you are more middle to center-right. That sounds kind of similar to a conservative southern Democrat or....can it be?....a moderate Republican? These days meeting a moderate Republican is like spotting a dodo bird.

Yea, the imperialist and neocon factions are nuts. They have gone off on some strange far right tangent that isn't much like traditional conservatism at all.

I actually have a fair amount of agreement with the last paragraph. You seem, to still be in this reality where we can discuss the pros and cons of varying degrees of social programs, as well as other solutions that don't involve socialization. Whereas many others these days just put their fingers in their ears and state the things they want to be true.

Frequently when I debate with people, it's on objective facts, where I can and do prove that I'm right. However we seem to be in agreement on most of the facts and could actually weigh different opinions regarding those facts. That's the way those discussions had been in the past, like if you watch the old presidential debates, like Kennedy vs Nixon maybe. Nobody is right or wrong for the most part, just a different subjective point of view.
I utterly refuse to accept something that is not true, but I'm very willing to look at things from the point of view of someone else.

What do you think about reducing the need for social programs and progressive taxation by regulating the market to stop people from rigging it in their favor, fixing prices (particularly labor), tightening antitrust type laws to break up some of these near-monopolies, etc? Something where the end result is a market that is free in actuality, rather than a market anarchy that can be controlled by whoever is the most powerful. So the market would be like a libertarian society rather than pure anarchy, where warlords rule however much of it they can take by force.

Or to give a small specific example, what if Wal-mart is required to pay their full time, career (not short term help) employees more, so that we don't have to pay for their food stamps?

I'd be interested to hear what you think about that sort thing.