2 ms·

Your argument over 'gluttony' is silly. Without shared meanings behind words, we cannot communicate. The common, shared, understanding of gluttony comes with

Your argument over 'gluttony' is silly. Without shared meanings behind words, we cannot communicate. The common, shared, understanding of gluttony comes with moral failing. After all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Gluttony http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Gluttony Which states: "Derived from the Latin gluttire, meaning to gulp down or swallow, gluttony (Latin, gula) is the over-indulgence and over-consumption of anything to the point of waste." Now, I highly doubt you have a different definition in mind. You are only backtracking now that people are heavily calling you out for it. So why are you backtracking here? The rest of your comments indicate are really consistent with someone who is in fact judging people who are obese. If you really aren't judging them, perhaps instead of arguing that 'gluttony' is a morally neutral word (it isn't), choose a different word? That's the nice thing about english, it has a lot of expressivity.

meric 12y ago
I had looked it up before I used it. It was a deliberate choice of a word. I'm not Christian and the use of the word "gluttony" was used to precisely mean the over-consumption of food. There is no backtracking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluttony http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluttony "Gluttony, derived from the Latin gluttire meaning to gulp down or swallow, means over-indulgence and over-consumption of food, drink, or wealth items to the point of extravagance or waste. In some Christian denominations, it is considered one of the seven deadly sins—a misplaced desire of food or its withholding from the needy." My original comment states: "Technically removing the consequences of gluttony is likely to increase demand for food products and therefore increase its price" --- I am morally against removing the consequences of gluttony, because it will increase human suffering through hunger as an unintended consequence. --- People can call me out on it, threaten me with all kinds of abuse, I will not take one inch back from my statement. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_... Which level are you? Are you perceiving me as judging those who are obese, and so is judging me for it?

meric 12y ago

I had looked it up before I used it. It was a deliberate choice of a word. I'm not Christian and the use of the word "gluttony" was used to precisely mean the over-consumption of food. There is no backtracking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluttony http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluttony "Gluttony, derived from the Latin gluttire meaning to gulp down or swallow, means over-indulgence and over-consumption of food, drink, or wealth items to the point of extravagance or waste. In some Christian denominations, it is considered one of the seven deadly sins—a misplaced desire of food or its withholding from the needy." My original comment states: "Technically removing the consequences of gluttony is likely to increase demand for food products and therefore increase its price" --- I am morally against removing the consequences of gluttony, because it will increase human suffering through hunger as an unintended consequence. --- People can call me out on it, threaten me with all kinds of abuse, I will not take one inch back from my statement. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham%27s_Hierarchy_... Which level are you? Are you perceiving me as judging those who are obese, and so is judging me for it?