10 ms·
If you think it's important for you, awesome. I personally think nuclear proliferation is a more important issue for the world than if I lose weight or not. A
by bb88 1y ago
If you think it's important for you, awesome. I personally think nuclear proliferation is a more important issue for the world than if I lose weight or not.
And that's okay for me, and it should be okay for you, too.
- mvdtnz 1y agoI didn't say anything about losing weight.
- chemicalnovae 1y agoThe parent said exercise though right, not weight loss? Exercise can/does lead to weight loss but it's certainly not the only benefit and might not even be the most important one.
- tbrownaw 1y ago> I personally think nuclear proliferation is a more important issue for the world than if I lose weight or not. That's a bad comparison though. A better one would be the effects that you losing weight (or getting in shape or whatever) would have on your life vs the effects that nuclear proliferation would have on your life. Or the effects that globally eliminating obesity would have on life expectancy vs the effects that solving proliferation would have on life expectancy.
- bb88 1y agoI completely disagree with you, as is my right. And you can disagree with me, and that's okay. I absolutely, truly believe nuclear proliferation is more dangerous than carbs. Fight me. The problem with your argument are the words, "you" and "your". You are making the mistake that pj50c is exactly arguing against. People arguing in effect, that "__you__ should do something." "If only __you__ understood...." "If only __you__ could control your lizard brain telling you you're hungry...." Those are your beliefs. They are not mine. And this is what people talk about when respecting "boundaries". I'm not saying you can't have you're opinion. And you can say, "I believe x, y, and z. And here's why...." And I'd be fine with that. In fact, I'd probably be more open to listening to you.
- tbrownaw 1y agoNo, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that of course comparing the effects of Intervention A on one person vs the effects of Intervention B on everyone will give a predetermined result. And that a proper comparison must either have an individual on both sides, or the whole group on both sides.
- bb88 1y agoAwesome. I'm glad you said, "I". My argument is that my carb intake is irrelevant compared to nuclear proliferation. My argument goes like this. Carb intake does probably lower life significantly, but doesn't lead to potentially worse outcomes compared to say nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. Carb intake usually affects people's life not early, but late. And if you believe that "carb intake" is a rational choice and not an urge made by the lizard brain then I would argue it's my choice -- my freedom -- and well get a boundary. OTOH, a nuclear incident would affect a broad swath of people across all ages. And it's not their choice.
- modo_mario 1y agoYou argue like it's one or the other which is genuinely inane. >Carb intake usually affects people's life not early, but late. It affects people before more severe medical consequences start setting in too.
- mvdtnz 1y agoTruth is not relative. What a shame what your American universities have done to your young minds.
- diziet 1y agoYou can do more things to change your future healthspan than you can do things to change nuclear proliferation. A major positive impact of exercise is stronger bones and less risk of major injury from falling and other accidents.