For far too long American’s have been obese. In fact, until recently, America was the #1 fattest country in the world. In a culture that should be enlightened enough to realize that girth does not equate to wealth, it seems that people still think that “being heavy” is acceptable, if not a little desirable. Numerous times, people have said to me, “You’re too skinny” or “Eat a hamburger!” Yet, I am still technically over weight!
Our culture has BRAINWASHED itself into thinking that BEING FAT is NORMAL! Does this make any sense? Fat people have shorter lives, suffer poorer health, and have less energy than do people in good condition. Why would anyone accept a lesser life when presented with opportunity to be healthy? Several explanations jump to mind: laziness, apathy, masochism. Unless they have a serious issue that is effecting their health in general, there is absolutely no reason for this. And no obesity is not some sort of disability. If it is, its only on so much as stupidity.
Many of the few that actually realize that their state is not optimal, nor desirable choose to try to better themselves, however pitifully it is. Not all, but many seem to just not realize how the body works. They think just by eating less, or eating almost an arbitrary selection of food will help them lose weight. This might work for a lucky few, and by “lucky few” I mean about 0.0001% of those who try, which effectively makes it an urban legend. The real key here is to actually exercise. I’m not referring to the TV gimmicks of dancing around with some strange contraption for 20 minutes a day. No, actual exercise. Running, biking, swimming, jumping rope. And do it for at least 1 to 2 hours per day. Drastic? No. How much TV does the average American watch per day? Probably more than 1 to 2 hours, during which time they are likely getting fatter.
Another issue that is holding back our sad and inept fellow Americans is the bureaucracy. This isn’t an attack on corporate America. Its an attack on human nature, because bureaucracy is an extension of human nature. Companies put all sorts of unhealthy material in food: high fructose corn syrup, caffeine, trans-fats, etc. They put these in there for two reasons. One, its cheaper. It saves them money so they can put out more product and gain more profit. There is nothing wrong with this, its the way capitalism works. Deal with it. Two, it makes the consumer want the unhealthy product more. The problems with this are so obvious they hardly need to be pointed out. The real problem is when these companies push to make these chemicals legal. High fructose corn syrup for example is the sweetener in almost 90% of the food the average American consumes. This chemical is little used outside of America because of the health hazard that it creates. There are actually healthy alternatives to HFCS that are used throughout the world, but are illegal in the US. The FDA banned them for being hazardous in spite of the fact that there were no documented health risks. The reasons, presumably are to protect corn farmers and keep money in the US. This seems to fall outside of the FDA’s jurisdiction. And the most important reason: HFCS suppresses the bodies natural ability to feel satiated after eating. It inhibits the stomach and convinces the brain to keep eating. Rampant consumerism is the answer.
In recap, most fat people are brainwashed victims of their own stupidity and need to read some information about health, look at the outside world, stop eating fast food, and above all else turn off the TV and exercise.
original content from http://jameswynn.com
18 Comments
When did James become a hippie? Was I working or something cause I totally didnt notice up until now.
For an actual response to your comment James: “Why would anyone accept a lesser life, when presented with opportunity to be healthy” - Your working under the assumption that people actually want to live longer. Some chose quality of quantity. The oldest living woman in the world has eaten rice and beans all her life and hasnt left the 10 mile area near her house for 111 years. Personally I would give up 30 years of my “life” for a good steak and beer. Dont forget fat chicks need loving too….except they gotta pay.
I think the bigger part of the issue is misunderstanding of what a healthy portion is, I’m on my way to class but I’ll post more on this later on. In all honesty I don’t care about HFCS, or Trans fat in my food, what bugs me is that I have to pay 8 bucks for 2000 calorie meals when I’d rather pay 6 bucks for 1000 calories…. Which is much more reasonable, like I said, I’ll rant on later.
Actually, Lance, I was speaking of quality of life. I understand the discorrelation between the two, and in fact I never actually mentioned trying to extend the length of your life at all. I’m talking about the increased energy and general improvement in quality of life that comes from being in better shape. I’ll agree that a life not lived to its fullest is hardly a life, but I dont think that includes squandering your life eating junk food and watching TV. There is much better excitement to be had.
Ok, for now we will set aside the fact that you sound like a damn hippie and we’ll discuss what you wrote.
First of all, I have to say that you are right about a few things. The majority of the cheapest food in this country is very unhealthy. If people want better health then they should get proper excersise and eat good nuticious food. All this I agree with.
Now for the rest. If someone tells you to eat a hamburger because you look skinny they might just be jelous. There is a huge health push countering the unhealthy crap. McD gets all kinds of shit for what they put in their food. The push for healthier food and corporate responsibility might be a new thing, but the health issue in general is not.
President Taft got stuck in his own bath tub becaus he was so fat. Taft was the last of the 19th century jolly old fat men. After him being large fell out of fasion. Ever since people have been talking about being healthy.
The thing is, it has only been about 60 years (or maybe you could argue 100) that this has really been an issue in the world. It has only been within these last few decades in the history of humanity that the most available food sorce has been fattening and the majority of people don’t subside through hard labor. In a way this is what we’ve been working toward all along. If the whole of human civilization has led to the fact that I can sit on my ass and eat a cheese burger in front of the TV, then why should I deny that to my ancestors. Ok, ok, we’re becoming lazy and stupid and excersise and healthy food stimulate brain function and make everything better. That is probably true, and I myself try to be healthy, but the point is I have the freedom to do as I please. I’m not just talking about social freedom - the fact that fatty burgers are legal - I’m also talking about freedom from my basic needs. If I want to buy a $3 burger that allows me 3 FREE minutes and a few FREE dollars then I can.
Your thesis seems to be that obesity has become not only acceptible, but socially encouraged. This, I have to say, surely cannot be the case. First of all, and any female you talk to will agree with me, our culture puts a huge emphasis on being skinny. This is, naturally, a connected issue. The prevalence of eating disorders probably has a connection to the proliferation of unhealthy food (though I can’t, and wouldn’t presume to, make a definite corrolation).
These two opposing forces create something of a social paradox. Perhaps society is saying, “Eat fat but look skinny” but that still isn’t the same as saying that our culture “brainwashes” us into being fat. Besides the fact that your statement that “our culture has brainwashed us” is complete sophistry it is just not right.
You can’t say that our culture “brainwashes” us. Perhaps “socializes us” would be a more appropriate wording. Using the term “brainwash” makes it sound like you are somehow outside of your own culture. You are not outside the system any more that me or anyone else - no matter how hard we might try.
We can comment on our cultrue and say how we might like to change it, but don’t presume that you are somehow outside of it or above it. It makes you sound like a pretencious hippy.
On one hand yes we are logical creatures that can choose to be healthy or choose to enjoy being unhealthy. On the other hand we are just animals insincivly fulfilling our needs…….fuck it. I could write a lot more, and I may yet, but I’m tired of typing for the moment.
Excuse my use of “culture” out of context, I think the word “society” probably would have worked better, and the meaning probably could have been glarked from context had you not taken such obvious offense to my article. And I when we are having a reasonable discussion/argument it would be nice to steer away from straw-man and other such logical fallacies.
“Hippie” indeed.
You seem to presenting health as a dichotomy between “be[ing] healthy” and “enjoying being unhealthy.” This is obviously skewed and false, as you can enjoy being healthy, and studies have shown time and time again that healthier people have more energy, motivation, etc. The joy likely extracted from “unhealth” is perverse at worst, and just plain laziness at best.
I disagree that our ancestors worked so that future generations could be lazy, fat, imbeciles. And likely, being the “hard labor” types, they wouldn’t be too impressed by that attitude either. We, as a race, didn’t work our asses off so that we could sit around being lazy, we did it to make progress.
I won’t address many of your arguments on similar grounds as not correcting your spelling.
If I come off as pretentious its not elitism, its idealism.
Well, forgive my flawed arguments and I’ll forgive yours.
In truth, I advocate a healthy lifestyle and I can agree with the majority of your points.
The only major point that I disagree with is that society, as a whole, points us toward being fat and lazy. It seems to me that some aspects of society do just that while others do the exact opposite. Some forces push people to eat fast, cheap and unhealthy while other forces push people to be thin and unrealistically beautiful.
And no, I’m sure our ancestors didn’t want us to be lazy and fat (unless they were upper class, in which case these things were signs of prestige). The statement I made was something of an exaggeration. In truth, I think they would have wanted us to live lives free of the every-day struggles of survival, which is what we’ve done, though for many it comes at the price of their health.
That being said people live longer today than at any time in history. And now I have to counter my own statement and say the contemporary scientists are saying that the youngest generation of Americans are the first to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents.
What it comes down to is that people have the free will to choose to live a healthy lifestyle or be fat and lazy. Yes, there are forces in society trying to sway us one way or another. Its not as simple as “people are brainwashed into being fat and lazy” so don’t make it sound as simple as that.
And I’m sorry I called you a hippie.
I buy and cook healthy food as much as possible. I usually drink tea or water, but if I want a soda or a beer I’ll have it. Lean cut meat and whole grain wheat are staples, but if I want a hamburger with bacon and a fried egg on top I’ll have it. Just as in everything moderation is the key, and for a guy who has his hash browns scattered, covered, capped, slapped, and topped I think you can appreciate that.
I’d have to say it’s impossible to be an idealist and a member of the working class. Anyone who remains an idealist and a member of the working class will soon find himself out of a job. Maybe it’s because I didn’t graduate the 6th grade, but seriously what the fuck does this sentence mean - “And I when we are having a reasonable discussion/argument it would be nice to steer away from straw-man and other such logical fallacies.” Nevermind the use of “I when we”….please explain what a straw man argument is. Until then I’ll just assume you misspelled every word in this sentence and what it really says is “I’m a dirty hippie.”
I’d say it is more of an association fallacy, however, by expressing that you indicated a straw man fallacy James has inadvertently created an ignoratio elenchi. As for working class idealists they exist, frequently so, they just usually find they are not happy with their work situation. As for a fat culture I think a lot of it stems from us making poor decisions on the basis of value. We eat things we should not eat from the basis of it being a good value. You hear it all the time with such expressions as, “the restaurant is pricy but the portions are big” or “you get a lot for what you pay” by indicating some sort of value, we rationalize that it is ok to consume such large portions. By not consuming the larger portions, we lose some part of the value.
A quick search for the term straw man brings up a definition quite readily. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument , which is also directly linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
And yes, I suppose I did make an ignoratio elenchi. I should have said Ad hominem, but the strawman was there too. But perhaps I’m being too pedantic.
And I suppose, Lance, that I can, with equal validity, interpret your statement as “I’m a filthy neo-con.” ? School yard arguments aside though, I’d have to say that working-class idealists can exist and succeed, but they have to be willing to drag others up to their standards. And those that refuse to be dragged should be crushed under the higher quality work and standards that we heave upon them.
As for health, moderation is definitely the key. But as the adage “all things in moderation” would imply, its not as simple an equation as just balancing junk food and healthy food. Many things such as exercise have to fit in too. You speak about your eating habits, but a large part of my initial argument was people watching TV and not exercising. I would have to again argue that this is at least equally important.
Your note about the upper class valuing gluttony and sloth just exemplifies how long this flawed mindset has been around. Just because something is the norm does not make it right though.
Quidem tu doctus procul dico similis absque pendo. As for your statement that working-class idealsts exist, they exist in a state of rapid decay. Given a long enough timeline they will, as with all things be absorbed into their system. Higher quality work standards is a matter of perspective. I could go on and on, however no one is actually listening to this. You’re just reading it and formulating a response. Just as I haven’t clicked on your link to the staw man argument explantion. I asked for an explantion on how it related to your comment. I didn’t ask for a link to another website where someone else has done that for you.
I’m curious why you accuse us of not reading your post. I responded to all the points you presented, what more do you want? Perhaps I’m being pedantic, but you asked what a straw man argument was, not how it applied. And as I just mentioned, in that particular instance I really meant ad hominem (despite the presence of any straw man arguments). The remark I was referring to was the “hippie” remark, which is definitely an ad hominem.
By the way, where did you find the “nifty” Latin quote?
dude I hope we all are sipping on import beer and smoking pipes while reading this argument, we get any more pretentious and they might give us honorary PhD’s
I grabbed random latin words from another site. Hoping that would add weight to my argument by being both confusing and unnecessary, not to mention superfluous, gratuitous, befuddled, and confounded. Truely a copious cornucopia of conflagration. Resulting in wild eyed mysticism usually reserved for a fractious meliorist. As Freud would have undoubtedly ascertained through careful conscientious mensuration - “Vous êtes un hippie sale.”
Ok, all Latin aside. I want to know exactly what we are arguing about
because it seems to have gotten confused.
James, you said that Lance and I were using a straw-man fallacy. That is, that we mis-represented your argument. If that is the case, then I did not do so intentionally.
Are you simply making a deceleration of value, that you believe in a healthy lifestyle and others should do the same?
Or are you saying that there is something inherently flawed in the current system that requires large-scale social (that is, governmental) action?
Or is there some other option that I’m leaving out?
My main argument was that this is a complex issue. Those selling food want us to buy their unhealthy food, and those selling images lead us to want to imitate those images. These are conflicting forces that cause people some confusion (perhaps those that have examined the situation have escaped this confusion, but that involves a more complex argument). Then there is the complication of regulation and corporate responsibility versus personal responsibility. You stated that some healthier alternatives to food additives have been banned by the FDA. On the flip side, there are agencies and groups pushing for the ban of trans-fats, soda is schools, and any number of other substances that can be deemed unhealthy. Is that good or bad?
Not so much an argument, just a note to think about:
For the most part it seems to me that people are simply reacting the the environment as they always have. Your bodies are designed to crave fatty sweet things and some people can get beyond that natural reaction. That’s not a societal issue, its a human issue. Those things that were rare through most of human history are all too common now, and its killing people.
It actually kind of surprises me that some people can go against instinct and eat healthy and exercise regularly. Isn’t free will wonderful.
So what you are telling me is that you are offended by the use of big words and progress?
Why nary, such linguistic communication is indispensable for the furtherance of gregarious reforms manifest in most geo-political landscapes. Furthermore the spatial relation of these prodigious linguistic communication can only intensify, enhance, and compound the structured difference of opinion to its up most level of ratiocinative conclusions. Were I to bespeak you to over modify these statements, your position would undoubtedly de-escalate and the interchange of communicative ideas would indeed dissipate. Furthermore, my own use of such spatial linguistic communication can only further to lubricate each others rudimentary inclination towards agreement. Mmm I said lube.
wow, i think this is sad, and sadder still that I even tried to read any of it. bitches.
Post a Comment