4 ms·

> the state it has a certain obligation to protect citizens from their own idiocy. And who makes that decision? If you look at the track record of the American

> the state it has a certain obligation to protect citizens from their own idiocy. And who makes that decision? If you look at the track record of the American Government over the past few decades, you'll see it's not them (Yes, you mentioned you're not American. My forthcoming point still applies). What happens when you entertain an idea that the government considers harmful to yourself and others, despite the fact that you have proof you're right and the government is wrong? Specifically, the FDA still prints and distributes and decrees that public schools teach the food pyramid. The food pyramid is 100% wrong, top to bottom. Saturated fat is good for you as has been proven by dozens of studies and the fact I'm still alive. But, prior to 5 years ago, if you entertained that notion and fed your family a high fat diet, you'd be considered as mentally deranged as the strange, home schooling prepper family who keep to themselves. I see the stance on saturated fat as no different than the current stance on Vaccination. Whatever you think on the subject, one way or the other, you should be free to do so. Governments aren't nannies. They're more like an abusive nurse who tortures inmates in the mental ward.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
> What happens when you entertain an idea that the government considers harmful to yourself and others, despite the fact that you have proof you're right and the government is wrong? There are many channels through which you could submit your proof in order to change government's stance on the topic. They don't work flawlessly (some would say they don't work well at all), but it beats everyone doing whatever they think is right and everyone else having to deal with collateral damage. > I see the stance on saturated fat as no different than the current stance on Vaccination. I disagree, if only because figuring out metabolism is hard, while the way diseases spread much less so. > Whatever you think on the subject, one way or the other, you should be free to do so. That's a recipe for disaster and you must know it. Otherwise, you might not be happy to hear that I think that a nuclear warhead would be a great gnome for my garden. > Governments aren't nannies. They're more like an abusive nurse who tortures inmates in the mental ward. You must be joking. If anything, governments are like abusive officers in jail full of mentally ill criminals. Their torture is nothing compared to what the inmates would do to one another in their absence, whether through stupidity or ill will. The very reason you can go out and buy quality food and tools without risking your health, life and money in the process is that the governments regulated the shit out of commerce and manufacturing AND have a system to enforce those regulations. Like it or not, a government is the best way to account for externalities and solve coordination problems at scale that we've figured out so far. It grows naturally in pretty much every society. And no, you shouldn't be doing anything you like wrt. vaccines. They make sense only when applied at scale, hence mandatory vaccinations.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  It grows naturally in pretty much every society. Well, if we're going by that, we should also concede that authoritarian societies are more common than free societies (per the Democracy Index). How should we interpret this?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Cynic in me would say it's because authoritarian regimes are much more efficient. Democracy is a luxury you can enjoy in times of peace, but you won't develop it if you're constantly at war with every neighbour.
- PopeOfNope 11y ago
  > There are many channels through which you could submit your proof in order to change government's stance on the topic. And yet, the food pyramid continues to exist. Scientists disputed it at the time it was introduced only to be blackballed. > it beats everyone doing whatever they think is right and everyone else having to deal with collateral damage. Who is this "everyone else"? And are you suggesting we want people doing whatever they think is wrong? > I disagree, if only because figuring out metabolism is hard, while the way diseases spread much less so. For the love of god, go back to high school science class. You have it backwards, in so so many ways. > governments are like abusive officers in jail full of mentally ill criminals You're calling yourself and your family mentally ill criminals?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > And yet, the food pyramid continues to exist. Scientists disputed it at the time it was introduced only to be blackballed. Change takes time. Do you have any theory (besides "FDA are idiots") about why exactly the food pyramid is still taught in school? I doubt it's a conspiracy of Big Food, because they can easily switch their "Fit" product lines from low-fat to low-carb and people buying it probably wouldn't even notice the change. Personally, I'm betting inertia, which is an inseparable part of the way big groups of people work. But whatever the reason will turn out to be, it most definitely won't be proving that the FDA is torturing citizens. > Who is this "everyone else"? And are you suggesting we want people doing whatever they think is wrong? No, I am suggesting that we want people doing whatever is right, as opposed to whatever they think is right. Those two things don't always overlap in large societies. > For the love of god, go back to high school science class. You have it backwards, in so so many ways. Now do I? Please elaborate on those ways. I stand by my assertion. Disease spread patterns are simple, because they follow relatively simple rules that are easy to verify empirically. Dietetics on the other hand is very hard for the same reason psychology is very hard - both fields are based around understanding insanely complex mechanisms and it's almost almost impossible to set up clean double-blind experiments with large samples for them, pushing practitioners to pursue advanced statistical methods that they aren't really equipped to handle. Thus both fields are mostly filled with bogus and bullshit results, making it unwise to believe anything there until it has been thoroughly analyzed and replicated many, many times. > You're calling yourself and your family mentally ill criminals? You started with torture and mental wards. I'm only adjusting it slightly. The important point to note is that governments don't magically appear - they are born out of people's desire to set up some rules as they notice that "everyone doing whatever they think is right" only leads to death, destruction and pain. But still; on large scale, people really are idiots. And yes, myself and my family are also idiots in many contexts, though understanding the difference between local and global optimization helps in becoming smarter in time.
somebehemoth 11y ago
> I see the stance on saturated fat as no different than the current stance on Vaccination. I politely disagree. A person's decision to eat a high fat diet will really only affect that person (putting aside long term health care costs for better or worse). People who choose not to vaccinate are actively putting others in danger simply by living in the world unvaccinated. Everywhere they go they bring danger. This is not true of a person's diet.
- PopeOfNope 11y ago
  > People who choose not to vaccinate are actively putting others in danger simply by living in the world unvaccinated. How? If the rest of the crowd has reached herd immunity, then it doesn't matter if the small percentage of anti-vaxxers are vaccinated or not.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> What happens when you entertain an idea that the government considers harmful to yourself and others, despite the fact that you have proof you're right and the government is wrong? There are many channels through which you could submit your proof in order to change government's stance on the topic. They don't work flawlessly (some would say they don't work well at all), but it beats everyone doing whatever they think is right and everyone else having to deal with collateral damage. > I see the stance on saturated fat as no different than the current stance on Vaccination. I disagree, if only because figuring out metabolism is hard, while the way diseases spread much less so. > Whatever you think on the subject, one way or the other, you should be free to do so. That's a recipe for disaster and you must know it. Otherwise, you might not be happy to hear that I think that a nuclear warhead would be a great gnome for my garden. > Governments aren't nannies. They're more like an abusive nurse who tortures inmates in the mental ward. You must be joking. If anything, governments are like abusive officers in jail full of mentally ill criminals. Their torture is nothing compared to what the inmates would do to one another in their absence, whether through stupidity or ill will. The very reason you can go out and buy quality food and tools without risking your health, life and money in the process is that the governments regulated the shit out of commerce and manufacturing AND have a system to enforce those regulations. Like it or not, a government is the best way to account for externalities and solve coordination problems at scale that we've figured out so far. It grows naturally in pretty much every society. And no, you shouldn't be doing anything you like wrt. vaccines. They make sense only when applied at scale, hence mandatory vaccinations.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
It grows naturally in pretty much every society. Well, if we're going by that, we should also concede that authoritarian societies are more common than free societies (per the Democracy Index). How should we interpret this?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Cynic in me would say it's because authoritarian regimes are much more efficient. Democracy is a luxury you can enjoy in times of peace, but you won't develop it if you're constantly at war with every neighbour.
PopeOfNope 11y ago
> There are many channels through which you could submit your proof in order to change government's stance on the topic. And yet, the food pyramid continues to exist. Scientists disputed it at the time it was introduced only to be blackballed. > it beats everyone doing whatever they think is right and everyone else having to deal with collateral damage. Who is this "everyone else"? And are you suggesting we want people doing whatever they think is wrong? > I disagree, if only because figuring out metabolism is hard, while the way diseases spread much less so. For the love of god, go back to high school science class. You have it backwards, in so so many ways. > governments are like abusive officers in jail full of mentally ill criminals You're calling yourself and your family mentally ill criminals?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > And yet, the food pyramid continues to exist. Scientists disputed it at the time it was introduced only to be blackballed. Change takes time. Do you have any theory (besides "FDA are idiots") about why exactly the food pyramid is still taught in school? I doubt it's a conspiracy of Big Food, because they can easily switch their "Fit" product lines from low-fat to low-carb and people buying it probably wouldn't even notice the change. Personally, I'm betting inertia, which is an inseparable part of the way big groups of people work. But whatever the reason will turn out to be, it most definitely won't be proving that the FDA is torturing citizens. > Who is this "everyone else"? And are you suggesting we want people doing whatever they think is wrong? No, I am suggesting that we want people doing whatever is right, as opposed to whatever they think is right. Those two things don't always overlap in large societies. > For the love of god, go back to high school science class. You have it backwards, in so so many ways. Now do I? Please elaborate on those ways. I stand by my assertion. Disease spread patterns are simple, because they follow relatively simple rules that are easy to verify empirically. Dietetics on the other hand is very hard for the same reason psychology is very hard - both fields are based around understanding insanely complex mechanisms and it's almost almost impossible to set up clean double-blind experiments with large samples for them, pushing practitioners to pursue advanced statistical methods that they aren't really equipped to handle. Thus both fields are mostly filled with bogus and bullshit results, making it unwise to believe anything there until it has been thoroughly analyzed and replicated many, many times. > You're calling yourself and your family mentally ill criminals? You started with torture and mental wards. I'm only adjusting it slightly. The important point to note is that governments don't magically appear - they are born out of people's desire to set up some rules as they notice that "everyone doing whatever they think is right" only leads to death, destruction and pain. But still; on large scale, people really are idiots. And yes, myself and my family are also idiots in many contexts, though understanding the difference between local and global optimization helps in becoming smarter in time.

somebehemoth 11y ago

> I see the stance on saturated fat as no different than the current stance on Vaccination. I politely disagree. A person's decision to eat a high fat diet will really only affect that person (putting aside long term health care costs for better or worse). People who choose not to vaccinate are actively putting others in danger simply by living in the world unvaccinated. Everywhere they go they bring danger. This is not true of a person's diet.

PopeOfNope 11y ago
> People who choose not to vaccinate are actively putting others in danger simply by living in the world unvaccinated. How? If the rest of the crowd has reached herd immunity, then it doesn't matter if the small percentage of anti-vaxxers are vaccinated or not.