4 ms·

> …and that is bad because they aren’t raw-dogging it. You’re correct, I just want to emphasize that “not raw-dogging it” is bad because it deprives the indivi

> …and that is bad because they aren’t raw-dogging it. You’re correct, I just want to emphasize that “not raw-dogging it” is bad because it deprives the individual of the self-discipline training. You’d think it would be a blanket Good Thing (tm) to have more people “survive” in general, but in reality, in the long term, it’s actually worse to increase the number of people on the planet that have to rely on chemical assistance to control their impulses

maxerickson 2y ago
Do you rawdog the sun bro, or are you chemically dependent on other living things?
- 0xcde4c3db 2y ago
  Fun (?) fact: some people have in fact claimed to sustain themselves solely on air, sunlight, and water. Okay, well, mostly. You see, they might occasionally need a Big Mac and Coke due to various forms of "pollution". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia
- gcr 2y ago
  I'm chemically dependent on my shoe sole rubber to insulate my artificially-soft feet from all the sharp stones I step over on my daily commute. Lo, how softe the human body has grown! If only 'twere for more self-discipline, my feet could develop the natural toughness to endure Nature's harsh grip!
orwin 2y ago
That's a surprisingly moralist take coming from someone who seems to have read and like Nietzsche (unless your pseudonym come from another Zarathustra). Whether you read him as a nihilist (some people do), post-nihilist or as a proto-existentialist, i don't see how you can see it as worse (a nihilist and post-nihilist wouldn't do such value judgement, and an existentialist wouldn't judge on how you live, but on what you do, and taking drugs to be in better shape isn't worse or better than powering through it with your own will.)
- zarathustreal 2y ago
  I’m surprised you read moralism from what I said despite it being such an ostensibly immoral concept. Moralism would advocate for the Good Thing (tm), saving people, in other words. Im actually advocating more of a pragmatism take on the situation by saying that we’re all worse off having so many more people with uncontrollable impulses. And I really didn’t even touch on the implications of divorcing actions from consequences. Granted, this is a false dichotomy on a large enough time scale, unless you define morality as some specific set of beliefs rather than the more abstract “doing the right thing” I am of course criticizing the ignorant application of morality in general, but ironically truly utilitarian morality and pragmatism happen to coincide in this case
  - orwin 2y ago
    Okay, I've read your comment as utilitarian, sorry. To me people are responsible of their own existence, so if you need drugs to be fully functional, be my guest. I'm judging (sightly, I do not have that much free time), but be my guest. And honestly I'm not even judging ozempic users, as an ex-obese. Weight loss is extremely hard and was extremely painful to me. People who never went through a real weight loss journey (from obese to not) shouldn't judge either. But please judge the HAES movement.

maxerickson 2y ago

Do you rawdog the sun bro, or are you chemically dependent on other living things?

0xcde4c3db 2y ago
Fun (?) fact: some people have in fact claimed to sustain themselves solely on air, sunlight, and water. Okay, well, mostly. You see, they might occasionally need a Big Mac and Coke due to various forms of "pollution". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia
gcr 2y ago
I'm chemically dependent on my shoe sole rubber to insulate my artificially-soft feet from all the sharp stones I step over on my daily commute. Lo, how softe the human body has grown! If only 'twere for more self-discipline, my feet could develop the natural toughness to endure Nature's harsh grip!

orwin 2y ago

That's a surprisingly moralist take coming from someone who seems to have read and like Nietzsche (unless your pseudonym come from another Zarathustra). Whether you read him as a nihilist (some people do), post-nihilist or as a proto-existentialist, i don't see how you can see it as worse (a nihilist and post-nihilist wouldn't do such value judgement, and an existentialist wouldn't judge on how you live, but on what you do, and taking drugs to be in better shape isn't worse or better than powering through it with your own will.)

zarathustreal 2y ago
I’m surprised you read moralism from what I said despite it being such an ostensibly immoral concept. Moralism would advocate for the Good Thing (tm), saving people, in other words. Im actually advocating more of a pragmatism take on the situation by saying that we’re all worse off having so many more people with uncontrollable impulses. And I really didn’t even touch on the implications of divorcing actions from consequences. Granted, this is a false dichotomy on a large enough time scale, unless you define morality as some specific set of beliefs rather than the more abstract “doing the right thing” I am of course criticizing the ignorant application of morality in general, but ironically truly utilitarian morality and pragmatism happen to coincide in this case
- orwin 2y ago
  Okay, I've read your comment as utilitarian, sorry. To me people are responsible of their own existence, so if you need drugs to be fully functional, be my guest. I'm judging (sightly, I do not have that much free time), but be my guest. And honestly I'm not even judging ozempic users, as an ex-obese. Weight loss is extremely hard and was extremely painful to me. People who never went through a real weight loss journey (from obese to not) shouldn't judge either. But please judge the HAES movement.