The Devil Made Me Buy That Dress
Another classic sentence, this time from the Guardian’s Jill Filipovic, who tells us:
Somehow, big food companies have convinced us that drinking a 32oz soda is a matter of personal liberty, and that the government has no place in regulating how much liquid sugar can be sold in a single container.
Apparently those evil food companies have – somehow, nefariously – made some of us consider the proper role of the state and whether it should have any business telling people what size beverage they may drink while watching a three-hour film in the local multiplex. Yes, that must be it. How else can we explain the fact that not everyone agrees with Jill Filipovic?
Jess1 16:45 “Again – what exactly is a ‘healthier habit’?”
Theodore Dalrymple has written at length about unhealthy eating habits in England: too much fast food, too many carbs, not enough fruit and green vegetables. And the connection between obesity and a high-carb diet seems pretty clear.
But it is one thing to see a problem and an entirely different thing to solve it. Compare today’s health fascists who seek to “help” designated victims by bullying and robbing designated “exploiter” classes, with, for example, the evangelical Christians of earlier generations who worked tirelessly in poor communities to persuade people that certain behaviors were harmful and should be replaced with other, more beneficial ones. So why do our progressive “friends” cling to their destructive policies? Because although they claim to care about people, it’s really all about power.
http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2013/02/18/richard-lehmans-journal-review-18-february-2013/
537 Most doctors are very uncomfortable with the fact that people over 65 who are overweight or obese live longer than those who are of “normal” weight. Not only does this run counter to the deep puritanism of medical culture, but it also flies in the face of logic, because such people are much more likely to have diabetes, heart failure and hypertension.
And yet obese people with hypertension have the best outcomes, in trial after trial. And if you give them thiazide diuretics and so increase their insulin resistance, they do even better. And if they get heart failure, they will greatly outlive their thinner peers. Here is an analysis of the ACCOMPLISH trial – don’t even try to remember which one that was – which clearly shows that thiazide treatment gives better outcomes in hypertensive fat people.
By all that’s holy in mechanistic reasoning, this should not be true, and it is all too much for the authors of the accompanying editorial. They list their objections and state:” Therefore, we reject the conclusion of Weber and colleagues that diuretic-based regimens are a reasonable choice in obese patients. On the contrary, we surmise that thiazide diuretics are contraindicated in obesity, relatively speaking.” So surmise trumps evidence? I don’t think so.
AC1,
For such heresy you must be silenced… Note the bias even there: “Most doctors are very uncomfortable with the fact that people over 65 who are overweight or obese live longer than those who are of “normal” weight”
Seriously? Here’s a flash: those who are now dead no longer qualify as part of any “weight” standard/s.
“And the connection between obesity and a high-carb diet seems pretty clear” No kidding – the great Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin pointed that out nearly two centuries ago. The issue though, is this: define “obese”, please, and clarify as to exactly why that’s an issue deserving of such vitriol.
Jess1 “The issue though, is this: define ‘obese’, please, and clarify as to exactly why that’s an issue deserving of such vitriol.”
It’s silly to demand that I give you a precise definition of ‘obese’ in order to talk about obesity. And since any vitriol is not coming from me, it is inappropriate to ask me to justify it. (Nor do I detect any such vitriol in this thread, so what gives?)
Aberdeen Angus patties with caramelised onions and American cheese. It has to be American cheese.
This thread is making me hungry.
Nor do I detect any such vitriol in this thread, so what gives?
Was just going to say the same. Mr T keeps this place civil. Weird sometimes but civil.
“It has to be American cheese.”
Fine with me, as long as it’s American cheddar. Sorry, I couldn’t resist. 🙂
A naive friend once walked into a cheese shop in Geneva and asked for some Swiss cheese. The clerk replied “It’s all Swiss cheese.”
“It’s silly to demand that I give you a precise definition of ‘obese’ in order to talk about obesity”
So it’s one of those “I don’t know what it is but I’m ‘again it” things?
BTW, the “vitriol” comment goes to the heart of most “obesity” commentary – read the link/op.
[ Dabs mouth with napkin and reaches for glass of red. ]
So, did I miss anything?
Fine with me, as long as it’s American cheddar.
Specifically, Kraft processed cheese slices. Yes, I know, they’re a bit tacky and technically barely cheese at all. But they seem to suit a burger better than anything else I’ve tried. Hey, the heart wants what it wants.
Jess1: I cannot give you a precise definition of a planet vs. planetoid vs. asteroid, but that does not prevent me from talking usefully about planetary physics.
Regarding vitriol: I repeat: I am not the one delivering vitriol, so why do you demand that I justify it?
It’s silly to demand that I give you a precise definition of ‘obese’ in order to talk about obesity.
No it’s not. We know whatever definition of “obese” is given will be changed, seing as it’s already happened in the US, where our “public health” [sic] people lowered the BMI range for normal healthy weights. They’ve also redefined the word “epidemic” to include obesity, which isn’t contagious.
And the people who want to be left alone don’t have to justify anything. It’s the people who wish to use the force of the state to butt into other people’s lifestyles who have to justify it. The like to talk about “quality of life”: but I for one know I’d have a higher quality of life if I didn’t have people trying to bully me indirectly for making dietary choices they don’t like.
Here in the US, we had a woman whose main claim to fame is sleeping with a prominent elected official go on national TV and bully an Olympic gold medallist because the gold medallist made dietary choices the woman didn’t like. Such bullies need to be hounded out of polite society, and deserve to be treated with vitriol. They’re not well-intentioned.
“Hey, the heart wants what it wants.”
I won’t argue with that: Embrace the foods you love, you’ll get no insults from me. I don’t like processed cheese very much, but see no reason to sneer at those who do. It seems like a sport invented by jerks who need to have someone to hate and despise but don’t dare use skin color as a criterion. If you’re ever in Chicago I’d happily buy you a burger with processed cheese (Kraft is headquartered here, so you could go on a pilgrimage) and raise a glass of red.
Ted: In case you haven’t noticed, I wrote against the state using its power to bully people into doing whatever the current leftist fads demand. If the definition of obesity changes, okay, that’s fine, I’m all in favor of the improvement of health sciences, but do you deny that obesity exists? I think that obesity does have negative health consequences, and so would be happy if obesity declined. But I’m not in favor of government coercing people in what they eat–or grocers in the prices they charge.
Just a couple of things I’d like to mention. Not trying to get into an argument with anyone, just thought I’d add fuel to the fire:-).
Regarding the “obese people live longer” thing, that appears to have been debunked: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/02/weight-and-mortality/ though I can’t swear that the linked article is debunking the study reference by AC1.
On the topic or “rights” being restrictions on the actions of government, those are “negative” rights. There is also the concept of “positive” rights, some of which can better be described as “entitlements” of course, but then there’s “the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury”. A right that required government, and coerced citizen, action. That’s the nature of positive rights, they require that someone be coerced into providing them.
Carry on:-)
Kraft is headquartered here, so you could go on a pilgrimage.
Bugger the pilgrimage, and the burger, just crack open the wine.
Jason: No, the right to a speedy and public trail is a constraint on the power of government.
Well, that was an amusing typo: Am I now on the record as demanding speedy and public trails? Magnificent, multi-lane affairs criss-crossing the nation with separate lanes for bicycles, pedestrians, roller skaters, and prams, and with rest stops serving Healthful tofu-based Foods?
Thank God you kept the ‘l’ in ‘public’.
pst314 – It never ceases to amaze me the righteousness of the righteous in their damning of the righteous. Not saying it’s wrong…that would be wrong.
It is now extremely obvious that the bedroom is only room in the house the Left believes the State has no place in.
Think back to those heady days when they loudly shouted that “the State has no place in the bedroom”. We all believed they were talking about individual liberty, but in fact we missed the obvious point that they were, in fact, making a specific and exclusive point about a particular room.
Rob: Not even the bedroom. If a woman dislikes a man she can charge him with rape.
“I cannot give you a precise definition of a planet vs. planetoid vs. asteroid, but that does not prevent me from talking usefully about planetary physics.” Certainly so, but I will ignore your talk @ the specific motions of small orbital bodies.
“Regarding vitriol: I repeat: I am not the one delivering vitriol, so why do you demand that I justify it?”
Why do you keep insisting that you’re the one I’m referring to?
Jason, no, it doesn’t refer there… note, however, that these are all “studies” of already existing data trimmed to fit whatever goal said researchers wish. FWIW, this is a howler: “These studies, in aggregate, show that the highest survival rates are in normal weight people”
No kidding. Tell me, is “normal weight” a condition that determines longevity or simply the result of measuring a population?
And this is supposedly the “cream” of higher education…
Jess1: You wrote “‘And the connection between obesity and a high-carb diet seems pretty clear’ No kidding – the great Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin pointed that out nearly two centuries ago. The issue though, is this: define ‘obese’, please, and clarify as to exactly why that’s an issue deserving of such vitriol.”
You were quoting me, so it’s reasonable to conclude that you were asking me to justify the vitriol. If you meant to direct the demand to someone else then you should have phrased your comment to make that clear. So who did you have in mind?
Jess1: Must I specify an acceptable pollution level before I am allowed to state that it seems pretty darn clear that heavy metals are a serious health hazard? I’m happy to pay attention to serious evidence on any side of various nutrition issues, but it seems as if you’re playing games here.
Families must not be allowed to buy in bulk. It isn’t fair and totalitarian democrats can’t allow it.
No, I wasn’t, and furthermore I have no say in what you specify, post, believe, or otherwise. Nor do I particularly care.
What I do know is that these various “crisis” well, aren’t. Nor are the various “dangers” actually “dangerous”. Obesity is neither an “epidemic” nor a “crisis”…
(I really shouldn’t have to point out that this is still in reference to the link in the OP as I pointed out previously. Not planetoids, asteroids, or hemorrhoids)
There may actually be a case for limiting the amount of food advertising permitted on TV.
We do have an obesity epidemic and it can’t be helpful for the ones who need discipline the most are inundated with food while watching TV.
As to what you can buy, it’s not for any bureaucrat or politician to say what I can spend my money on.
They feel they have that right because so much of the money the public spends comes through the coercion of the state having been taken from others. That’s way more heinous than the government telling you what you can do with other people’s money.
The fact that the Harvard panel raises a concern about the legitimacy of science should the current ideas on obesity and health be shown to be wrong-headed is what makes me walk away from it. Science is about the pursuit of what’s factually valid, even if it doesn’t support our long-held ideas about what’s true.
They really should know better. /fades back into the woodwork
“Science is about the pursuit of what’s factually valid, even if it doesn’t support our long-held ideas about what’s true.”
Note with alarm by Eisenhower, in his famous “science/government” speech: “a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity…
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present, and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite. ”
It seems that bar was crossed long ago by the likes of Ms.Filipovic…
pst314, how is a right to a speedy trial a constraint on the power of government? Such a trial requires a courtroom, a judge, and a jury of one’s peers, very few of whom are there voluntarily. I know I’ve never volunteered for jury duty. Rather I’ve been coerced, on pain of…well, I’m not certain how I’d be punished if I didn’t bother to show up, especially had I ever actually been selected for a jury, but I’m confident that punishment would be forthcoming.
A right to due process is a constraint on the power of government, to prevent it from arbitrarily imprisoning or executing anyone who irritates the local bureaucrat-in-chief, but jury trial (which I don’t think is a logical necessity for due process, though it’s nice to have) definitely imposes obligations on people not involved in the crime itself. Note, I’m not arguing against the civil obligation, just pointing out that there are positive rights enshrined in law (in the U.S. anyway) that most people wouldn’t disagree with. The question, in my opinion, is just how far should such positive rights be permitted to extend. Jury trial is a positive right intended to secure due process. Food stamps, socialized medicine, subsidized housing etc, are positive rights to, de facto, encourage dependence on government at the expense of private citizens. I favor the former, but not the latter.
The Filipovic article is confused even by Guardian standards.
Filipovic: “low-income folks… face systematic impediments to healthy eating and exercise.”
Er, what ‘systematic impediments’? Healthy food has never been cheaper (thanks to those evil food companies and supermarkets). Walking and jogging is free.
The Filipovic article is confused even by Guardian standards.
It does rather jump about without mustering much of an argument on any particular point. (Childcare, vacation time, body image, parental leave, “social justice,” “cultural polarisation,” the size of soda cups, etc.) As others have noted, there’s also a lot of the paranormal we, a Guardian signature, and no reference at all to personal responsibility. Apparently what other people choose to eat is something “we” should all fixate on and interfere with wherever possible.
Andrew C:
“Healthy food has never been cheaper (thanks to those evil food companies and supermarkets). Walking and jogging is free.”
I may have mentioned this here before – the argument seems to come around so often at the Guardian – but pointing out how cheaply and easily people *could* keep fit if they really want to seems to equal hate speech over there. This article (by Zoe Williams, of course):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/14/obesity-diabetes-cheap-food-poverty
. . .claims that eating at McDonald’s is actually the best and cheapest way to manage on a tight budget. So poor people just can’t *help* being fat.
Notice how, as people do her sums for her and she gets the usual kicking in the comments, she becomes more and more narked before opting out altogether and resorting to calling her critics ‘tossers’ on twitter.
Notice how, as people do her sums for her and she gets the usual kicking in the comments, she becomes more and more narked before opting out altogether and resorting to calling her critics ‘tossers’ on twitter.
Yes, that happens to Zoe quite a lot. Luckily, being shown to be wrong over and over again doesn’t impede her rush to blame pretty much everything on a lack of socialism. She really is impervious.
pst314, how is a right to a speedy trial a constraint on the power of government?
Because it establishes a standard of conduct that the government must meet before (legitimately) using the powers of the state to deprive you of liberty or property. Absent this requirement the preferred government response is to throw undesirables in jail, and simply never get around to the trial part…
Hi David
I applaud you and your fan club’s suspicion of the state, although it does stray into kneejerkism. For example, it is perfectly possible to hold to a belief in basic rights without bringing the state into it. And as I’ve noted already, most people here seem to be happy with influence, manipulation and deceit being conducted for the sake of profit, but balk at the idea of it being done for the sake of ideology. It reminds me of Orwell’s essay “The Lion and the Unicorn”, where he describes the way capitalists in England knew that Germany was gearing up for war in the late ’30s, yet continued to sell them war goods because of the short term profit motive. There’s an odd idolising of money, in that you often object to things on the grounds of cost and that you will have to pay for them through your taxes. However, money derives its value from the state, specifically from Her Majesty.
OK, so you are merely disgruntled with the people you write so much about. You are merely lukewarm. I tend to lose interest in that case, which is a shame when I think you make some good, sharp, insightful analysis.
AC1
I seem to have made you grumpy. I apologise for that. Where do I talk about nice things magically happening? And where, specifically, is the coercion in saying the sick have a right to medical treatment? I’ve never heard of the definition of ‘right’ being ‘restriction on the state’, but if that is the case why are you against restricting the state you appear to hate so much? I’d rather the state expended its resources on the common good. What else is the state for? I rather see rights as an expression of certain duties which are incumbent on us all.
I’m very sorry for your view of human relationship. I believe it is possible for people to give freely to one another without being forced into it, as well as to build structures in which a doctor can serve the sick without having to demand payment from them.
However, money derives its value from the state, specifically from Her Majesty.
Money derives its value from the productivity of those who use that money as a medium of exchange. Her Majesty isn’t out there milking the cows, soldering the electronics, or building the robots.
It’s still her face on the paper.
Sorry, glib answer, but so was yours. I used the word ‘value’ for want of a better one. The point is that you know very well that the ability of our currency to serve as a means of exchange is guaranteed by the gentlemen with guns and bombs and their networks of courts, armies and prisons and suchlike. They are all people or things which are subject to the the crown. Try trading your milk, electronics and robots without a currency likewise guaranteed by a state.
In a free society, and even in one that is not, all the queen’s horses and all the queen’s men cannot dictate the means of exchange of goods and services between two economic entities. Many despots have tried but ultimately failed as black markets emerged, alternative currencies are chosen, or barter systems arose. Many a country has inflated their currencies out of existence and now the USD, GBP, etc. have become the means of temporary storage of wealth. Like most people, most educated people, and even most highly educated people you do not understand wealth, money, or where wealth and money come from. See pst’s post from above:
Puzzle 14:36 “Darleen, Thank you for your input. I suppose where I come from is that the food is already there, fresh and inviting.”
No it isn’t just “already there”. It is there only because a vast network of people did the work to create it and put it in the stores.
The state’s power comes from the productivity of its people. It can only pay its “gentlemen” and purchase its bombs with the wealth created by the people under its domain. If the people of the UK cease to make things people in or governments of other countries want, then the UK’s ability to purchase goods from other countries begins to spiral down.
BTW, the people pictured on my currency are all dead. Not much power there.
Hi Puzzle,
it is perfectly possible to hold to a belief in basic rights without bringing the state into it.
Of course, but even with negative rights, your right somehow needs to be enforced. With positive rights, your right is an obligation on someone else – and if they do not voluntarily fulfill their obligation, where are you with your right?
The state as being the entity we’ve created to employ force both for and against us, is the obvious one to also enforce our rights. It’s when it starts granting positive rights that it becomes a problem.
-S
WTP, I acknowledge that I don’t fully understand the magic behind what makes money works, but neither do I believe you understand it. I believe ultimately there is something of a con trick keeping it going, and part of that con trick is the sovereignty of the state.
BTW, the people pictured on my currency are all dead. Not much power there.
I believe you underestimate the power of the dead.
Simen, at the risk of seeming stupid, could you remind me of the distinction between positive and negative rights?
Puzzle,
And as I’ve noted already, most people here seem to be happy with influence, manipulation and deceit being conducted for the sake of profit, but balk at the idea of it being done for the sake of ideology.
I’d imagine most here would agree that, as a general rule, deceit isn’t a good thing. But given the context above, when companies try to manipulate customers their efforts are generally confined to swaying preferences in fairly trivial matters: “If I use this styling product my hair will be as shiny and voluminous as hers. Then those bitches at work will be envious. Huzzah!” Or, “There’s a nonzero chance that this new breakfast cereal will make me fractionally more attractive. I’ll take those odds.” It’s generally things of that nature. Fairly silly stuff and widely understood as such.
And if the makers of Envious Bitch Styling Mousse fail to deliver the expected fantasy of volume, shine and jealous co-workers, you can go elsewhere and try something else (or rethink your priorities in life). But with the state in the role of manipulator and peddler of fantasy, where else can you take your custom?
[ Added: ]
The fantasy is this case being that the state can make you thin. Or that making people thin is a proper duty of the state. Or that the state can serve as a benign, all-knowing parent and that, given enough leverage, its bureaucracies can care for your wellbeing and correct your imperfections. Or that one can doze off in the ample bosom of the state without any bothersome and unforeseen consequences. Yes, let’s give them even more power to “nudge” and “intervene,” to take away certain choices, to steer us to the light. For our own good, because they’re such good people and, being such good people, they know best.
What could possibly go wrong?
Has anyone in this thread ever been influenced by advertising to buy something they didn’t already want? I haven’t, and I don’t consider myself to be particularly special or ‘Progressive’.
So why does the Left feel the need to ban advertising? Do they simply think everyone else is stupid and gullible?
Rob,
Do they simply think everyone else is stupid and gullible?
It’s strange how readily some people assign enormous coercive power to advertising, as if it could fundamentally change the nature of the beast, and as if people in general didn’t understand the game being played. George Monbiot, for instance, claims that advertising makes “us” “atomised” and “grasping,” though he doesn’t explain how or provide any evidence. Mr Monbiot seems to believe that customers are invariably passive victims, devoid of the autonomy and discrimination that he presumably feels he has. As I said at the time, my desire for a clean shirt has very little to do with adverts for detergent.
Envious Bitch Styling Mousse
I need this product. I need it NOW.
David,
‘George Monbiot, for instance, claims that advertising makes “us” “atomised” and “grasping,” though he doesn’t explain how or provide any evidence.’
What I’d like him to do, just once, is explain how *he* has managed to face down the blandishments of the evil advertisers and come out of the other side all clear-sighted and whole and morally spotless. Surely if he just tells us how *he* does it, we’d all be equipped to avoid being duped and the ‘problem’ would simply go away.
And then there’d be no need for government action to whip us all into line, would there?
Oh, I see. Maybe not then. . .
Puzzle, could you remind me of the distinction between positive and negative rights?
Sure, it’s an interesting topic that at least for me clears up a lot of misconceptions about ‘rights’, and how the ‘right to free speech’ differs from the ‘right not to starve’. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
In short, negative rights are your rights not to be interfered with, while positive rights are your rights to claim property or services from others (which of course could be in violation of their negative rights).
This gets muddled for instance when the right to free speech gets interpreted as the right to be heard – freedom of speech is your negative right, while the right to impose your speech on (possibly) unwilling listeners would be your positive right.
Yours,
-S
Puzzel,
WTP, I acknowledge that I don’t fully understand the magic behind what makes money works, but neither do I believe you understand it. I believe ultimately there is something of a con trick keeping it going, and part of that con trick is the sovereignty of the state.
If you don’t understand how something works to the point of viewing it as “magic”, how can you judge that someone else doesn’t? One would think a fundamental inability to understand basic economic concepts would disqualify one from making economic demands on society. No product of another person’s effort can possibly be free. It has to be paid for or accounted for in some manner. If you want to understand economics before pontificating on economic matters, I highly suggest you start with the Robinson Crusoe economy. There’s a wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_Crusoe_economy
Though perhaps others here could provide a better source. I have to get back to work to pay the taxes so that others can get their “free” health care, food, housing, etc.
On another note, this positive/negative rights thing…I was hoping that wouldn’t catch on. It’s so counterintuitive, like the red/blue state thing over here. Or that damn word “nonplussed”.
It’s when it starts granting positive rights that it becomes a problem.
See also Mark Steyn’s video on identity politics and the collectivist inversion of human rights.