4 ms·

I would much rather live in a country where we are free to choose what we eat but most people are unhealthy, than the inverse. The blog post attempts to use em

by javert 13y ago

I would much rather live in a country where we are free to choose what we eat but most people are unhealthy, than the inverse. The blog post attempts to use emotional manipuation to win people its side. For instance, it ignores the fundamental tradeoff involved (freedom vs. public health), it uses vulgarity in the title, and has a massive platitude at the end. Moreover, it is highly focused around pictures, which is a giveaway for an attempt at emotional manipulation. In summary, this is highly juvenile and evasive writing and thinking. Even if you agree with the author's ultimate point of view, you should feel insulted that he would try to appeal to you you in a way that is not based in reason and logic.

misiti3780 13y ago
That is fine, except for the fact that our heath care system is fundamentally fucked up and since we are moving toward a socialize system (which I am not trying to take a side on for the purposes of this comment), its going to cost you and I more money cause unhealthy people cost more (they get sicker more often, they have higher percentage of cancer, heart disease, etc - they are in the hospital a lot more). I would be completely fine with all this stuff if insurance premiums were tied to weight/health - unfortunately for everyone who does exercise and stays in shape, they are not .... yet
- thatswrong0 13y ago
  I've read that this isn't the case: > Obesity is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and is associated with high medical expenditures. It has been suggested that obesity prevention could result in cost savings. The objective of this study was to estimate the annual and lifetime medical costs attributable to obesity, to compare those to similar costs attributable to smoking, and to discuss the implications for prevention. …. Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...
  - misiti3780 13y ago
    me too: http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462 http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Scienc...
throwww00 13y ago
Agreed. People are too deluded and forget about the fundamental issue - choice. I believe this is what they refer to as a "circle jerk".A bunch of people agreeing with each other on an issue that doesn't have a right or wrong.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Freedom and a superfluity of choice are not the same thing. The latter is frequently offered as a substitute for the former. http://www.economist.com/node/17723028 http://www.economist.com/node/17723028
mjallday 13y ago
I would agree if I was free to not pay for other's health care. If I am responsible for helping you when you're sick then am responsible for helping you not get sick in the first place.
- throwww00 13y ago
  Actually, living long til old age is what drains the health care system. Once you pass retirement and no longer working you are simply a drain to the system. So your opinion goes completely out the window.
  - nbouscal 13y ago
    Wait, there being another factor in the high cost of health care means his argument goes completely out the window? So you're saying there can't possibly be two reasons for the high cost of health care?!
- javert 13y ago
  > I would agree if I was free to not pay for other's health care. We shouldn't have to. The universe doesn't owe me anything, and nor do I owe it anything. And socialized healthcare is manifestly bad for me individually and manifestly bad for everyone in the long run.
rxp 13y ago
Come on, like you're any better. You start off with a dismissal of the author's point based on a completely subjective value judgment, then point out some trivial rhetorical techniques to try to discredit their argument, and then you make another completely unsubstantiated value judgment by saying that we should be insulted by any argument that's not laid out in bland logical terms. What part of what you have said is based in reason or logic? Should I be insulted by your comment as well?
- javert 13y ago
  You're making an unfair and illogical equivocation. I could pick apart every piece of what you said, but I doubt that would be productive, so I'll just focus on one particularly damning thing. > make another completely unsubstantiated value judgment by saying that we should be insulted by any argument that's not laid out in bland logical terms Yes, I have made a value judgement that people should appeal to each other using reason and logic. If you do not agree with that, there is no point in discussing _anything_ with you, because you cannot be reached. (As a sidenote, that value judgement is not subjective. It's also not unsubstantiated. However, even if you _were_ interested in reasoned and logical arguments, it would not be useful for me to give you a philosophical treatise on this topic in the HN comments. Particularly not for something that all reasonable people (by the very definition of "reasonable"!) agree on already.)
  - rxp 13y ago
    Ah, yes, very logical of you. I think I recognize the form of the proof; isn't this the same basic argument that Fermat used to prove his last theorem? :p Anyway, your point isn't nearly as straightforward and uncontroversial as you've made it out to be. You're not just saying that people should discuss things using logic, you're saying that people should discuss things using logic exclusively. Or at least that's how I interpret your statement that we should be insulted when somebody uses rhetorical devices. If you really have the philosophical or mathematical background it would take to make a proper argument grounded only in logic, that would be one thing (and I suppose I can't conclude that you don't, based solely on the lack of evidence so far). What you see entirely too often online, though, are people who claim to be making perfectly logical arguments, but are only able to do so because they're extremely cavalier with their axioms ("freedom trumps health", perhaps, or "it is only possible to have a rational discussion with somebody who explicitly rejects all other forms of reasoning".) And, for the record, I am explicitly not claiming to be making a proper, logically sound argument here. I acknowledge and accept that I don't know how to do it properly, and I'd most likely just make a mess of things.
nwh 13y ago
You're ignoring that the article is Australian. We have free healthcare already.
- javert 13y ago
  I don't see how that's relevant to my point. In Australia, you have freedom to eat what you want, and if you don't stand up for that, you won't in the future. > We have free healthcare already. Free as in beer, but unfree as in freedom. Also, even beer as to be paid for by somebody.
  - nwh 13y ago
    I as a tax payer support the healthcare in part. I'd be happier if other people were healthier, as I'd be paying less. Don't get me wrong, I love our healthcare system. I am trying to explain the reasoning for the authors post.

by javert 13y ago

misiti3780 13y ago

That is fine, except for the fact that our heath care system is fundamentally fucked up and since we are moving toward a socialize system (which I am not trying to take a side on for the purposes of this comment), its going to cost you and I more money cause unhealthy people cost more (they get sicker more often, they have higher percentage of cancer, heart disease, etc - they are in the hospital a lot more). I would be completely fine with all this stuff if insurance premiums were tied to weight/health - unfortunately for everyone who does exercise and stays in shape, they are not .... yet

thatswrong0 13y ago
I've read that this isn't the case: > Obesity is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and is associated with high medical expenditures. It has been suggested that obesity prevention could result in cost savings. The objective of this study was to estimate the annual and lifetime medical costs attributable to obesity, to compare those to similar costs attributable to smoking, and to discuss the implications for prevention. …. Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...
- misiti3780 13y ago
  me too: http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462 http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Scienc...

throwww00 13y ago

Agreed. People are too deluded and forget about the fundamental issue - choice. I believe this is what they refer to as a "circle jerk".A bunch of people agreeing with each other on an issue that doesn't have a right or wrong.

anigbrowl 13y ago
Freedom and a superfluity of choice are not the same thing. The latter is frequently offered as a substitute for the former. http://www.economist.com/node/17723028 http://www.economist.com/node/17723028

mjallday 13y ago

I would agree if I was free to not pay for other's health care. If I am responsible for helping you when you're sick then am responsible for helping you not get sick in the first place.

throwww00 13y ago
Actually, living long til old age is what drains the health care system. Once you pass retirement and no longer working you are simply a drain to the system. So your opinion goes completely out the window.
- nbouscal 13y ago
  Wait, there being another factor in the high cost of health care means his argument goes completely out the window? So you're saying there can't possibly be two reasons for the high cost of health care?!
javert 13y ago
> I would agree if I was free to not pay for other's health care. We shouldn't have to. The universe doesn't owe me anything, and nor do I owe it anything. And socialized healthcare is manifestly bad for me individually and manifestly bad for everyone in the long run.

rxp 13y ago

Come on, like you're any better. You start off with a dismissal of the author's point based on a completely subjective value judgment, then point out some trivial rhetorical techniques to try to discredit their argument, and then you make another completely unsubstantiated value judgment by saying that we should be insulted by any argument that's not laid out in bland logical terms. What part of what you have said is based in reason or logic? Should I be insulted by your comment as well?

javert 13y ago
You're making an unfair and illogical equivocation. I could pick apart every piece of what you said, but I doubt that would be productive, so I'll just focus on one particularly damning thing. > make another completely unsubstantiated value judgment by saying that we should be insulted by any argument that's not laid out in bland logical terms Yes, I have made a value judgement that people should appeal to each other using reason and logic. If you do not agree with that, there is no point in discussing _anything_ with you, because you cannot be reached. (As a sidenote, that value judgement is not subjective. It's also not unsubstantiated. However, even if you _were_ interested in reasoned and logical arguments, it would not be useful for me to give you a philosophical treatise on this topic in the HN comments. Particularly not for something that all reasonable people (by the very definition of "reasonable"!) agree on already.)
- rxp 13y ago
  Ah, yes, very logical of you. I think I recognize the form of the proof; isn't this the same basic argument that Fermat used to prove his last theorem? :p Anyway, your point isn't nearly as straightforward and uncontroversial as you've made it out to be. You're not just saying that people should discuss things using logic, you're saying that people should discuss things using logic exclusively. Or at least that's how I interpret your statement that we should be insulted when somebody uses rhetorical devices. If you really have the philosophical or mathematical background it would take to make a proper argument grounded only in logic, that would be one thing (and I suppose I can't conclude that you don't, based solely on the lack of evidence so far). What you see entirely too often online, though, are people who claim to be making perfectly logical arguments, but are only able to do so because they're extremely cavalier with their axioms ("freedom trumps health", perhaps, or "it is only possible to have a rational discussion with somebody who explicitly rejects all other forms of reasoning".) And, for the record, I am explicitly not claiming to be making a proper, logically sound argument here. I acknowledge and accept that I don't know how to do it properly, and I'd most likely just make a mess of things.

nwh 13y ago

You're ignoring that the article is Australian. We have free healthcare already.

javert 13y ago
I don't see how that's relevant to my point. In Australia, you have freedom to eat what you want, and if you don't stand up for that, you won't in the future. > We have free healthcare already. Free as in beer, but unfree as in freedom. Also, even beer as to be paid for by somebody.
- nwh 13y ago
  I as a tax payer support the healthcare in part. I'd be happier if other people were healthier, as I'd be paying less. Don't get me wrong, I love our healthcare system. I am trying to explain the reasoning for the authors post.