3 ms·

So you're saying that it was your choice to have your first bite of sugar, and you could have abstained? This kind of "abstinence-only personal fitness" might

So you're saying that it was your choice to have your first bite of sugar, and you could have abstained? This kind of "abstinence-only personal fitness" might work fine for cigarettes, but kinda breaks down when it's stuff you've been fed since you were 5 weeks old and has been injected into most pre-prepared foods in a "sweetness war" that's lasted decades.

zorga 8y ago
You are responsible for what you eat, you are responsible for breaking your own addictions. Pointing the finger at sugar sellers is just a way to wallow in the avoidance of accepting responsibility for yourself. Want to break a sugar addiction, stop eating, fast until you've broken all food addictions and shed much of the stored calories, and then build up a better diet when you start eating again.
- cf498 8y ago
  I dont know if I would follow the argument as sugar being an addiction, but I do agree with your description in general and the accountability when it comes to beeing addicted. To be frank, if you dont want to consume a substance any longer, dont look to your dealer, look at yourself. Some people might find that a bit offensive, but its not really a moral argument but one of self determination. You chose to consume something and you choose to continue to consume that substance. The fact that it is a lot easier to start and to keep doing it then it is to stop, doesnt mean that you dont have a choice in the matter. The ods being stacked against you doesnt rob you of, or relieve you from, your freedom to choose. If I understand the the concept correctly, Alcoholics Anonymous is partly to blame here for that mindset, with the focus on your powerlessness. But if you want it or not, it still is your choice, not an easy one and not one with a right or wrong answer, but ultimately your choice. You are fundamentally not an object at the mercy of your circumstances, as easy as life would be that way.

zorga 8y ago

You are responsible for what you eat, you are responsible for breaking your own addictions. Pointing the finger at sugar sellers is just a way to wallow in the avoidance of accepting responsibility for yourself. Want to break a sugar addiction, stop eating, fast until you've broken all food addictions and shed much of the stored calories, and then build up a better diet when you start eating again.

cf498 8y ago
I dont know if I would follow the argument as sugar being an addiction, but I do agree with your description in general and the accountability when it comes to beeing addicted. To be frank, if you dont want to consume a substance any longer, dont look to your dealer, look at yourself. Some people might find that a bit offensive, but its not really a moral argument but one of self determination. You chose to consume something and you choose to continue to consume that substance. The fact that it is a lot easier to start and to keep doing it then it is to stop, doesnt mean that you dont have a choice in the matter. The ods being stacked against you doesnt rob you of, or relieve you from, your freedom to choose. If I understand the the concept correctly, Alcoholics Anonymous is partly to blame here for that mindset, with the focus on your powerlessness. But if you want it or not, it still is your choice, not an easy one and not one with a right or wrong answer, but ultimately your choice. You are fundamentally not an object at the mercy of your circumstances, as easy as life would be that way.