Jump to content

Do people have an ethical obligation to be healthy?


Karst

Recommended Posts

 + Thank you for stressing what I said: 

6 hours ago, theV0ID said:
8 hours ago, Beam Anne said:

Obviously, the goal is not to become a mummy.

To bring this back to the actual topic, I don't think this type of deliberate unhealthiness (starving oneself to death for religious reasons) is unethical, as they are not causing anyone else suffering (I class things as unethical only when they negatively impact others), except I suppose the people who cared for them... but as this was a lofty religious goal I suppose their loved ones might have actually been happy for them. The ethics of allowing someone to do this to themselves are another matter.

Because

8 hours ago, Beam Anne said:

The final goal, wether it is Nirvana or something more elusive than that, is a matter of debate in which I am unlikely to participate.

... since that goal is completely detailed here.  And, while the Tibetan way to the same goal is different from 

Sokushinbutsu, I totally appreciate your statement:

6 hours ago, theV0ID said:

The ethics of allowing someone to do this [self-mortification/self-mummification*] to themselves are another matter.

[* I added this]

In conclusion, I stick to my conclusion: 

8 hours ago, Beam Anne said:

the Buddhist Middle Path of moderation has some good parts, which, if wisely discerned, are useful guiding clues for healthy daily living.

+

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread locked pending admod review.
 

Iam9man

PPS Moderator

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please remember to stay on topic and keep in mind the Terms of Service.

 

Due to the nature of discussions in PPS, some posts will naturally be a bit tangental, but if you want to discuss a whole other topic please start a new thread.

 

If you find the conversation is getting heated please take a step back and/or report any potential breaches of the ToS.

 

Unlocking thread.

 

Iam9man

PPS Moderator

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2SpiritCherokeePrincess said:

The radio series This American Life had an episode about fat shaming.  https://www.thisamericanlife.org/589/tell-me-im-fat

I agree with Bill Maher on this one. 

 

A slight degree of shaming, can produce reform.

 

IE It being shameful to drink and drive. It being shameful to stuff one's face and so on. 

 

Without a slight degree of shame, many more wouldn't feel a need to avoid "letting themselves go" and allowing the government to care for their now incapacitated selves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with mocking fat people, however but them feeling a slight social pressure and self conscious? I have no issue with this.

 

When I gained 70lbs from depression following my mother's death, people started commenting about me getting fat. 

 

I was in a rut, and it took a health scare to move me out of it.

 

Feeling horrible about it didn't help, but the slight shame to do things like wear a t-shirt helped motivate me to lose it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alaska Native Manitou
10 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

shaming, can produce reform.

I'm glad that you've changed your mind about cancel culture.  Let's shame Goya Foods together!

Link to post
Share on other sites

+

On 1/23/2021 at 8:23 AM, Moonman said:

Romans did eat three meals a day, though only one of them was really a "meal" by modern sensibilities. Ientaceum (breakfast) [...], prandium (lunch) [...] cena, the main meal a day, [...] (dinner)

Yes.

The Civilized Rome spread its good ideas to the rest of Europe, and so forth.  To this day the words for lunch and dinner derive from the Latin names you mentioned, in several European languages.

 

Of course the Roman patricians and potentates: they had everything done for them by their slaves, who brought them their favorite foods on demand, they had their retinues to dote on them and procure all they demanded; and rich tradesmen and bankers (sic!); and the Athenian aristocrats before them – would not suffer to eat only once a day.  (I am referring to the extent of their empires, not only to those cities.  And the rich and "powerful" of the world over, ever since they had ::arrived::: why would they eat one meal a day?  Or maybe they did, only it lasted all day😉... Whereas ... * 

 

I am talking about The People.  The vast majority.  There were very distinct classes in antiquity.  The free working people, had a lot of toiling, but not much income security, either in the cities or in rural areas.  Slaves had much more grub-security than a lot of the free working class, even if they'd end-up with left-overs.  Plus, for many slaves the grub was near most of the time, so they could eat more often.  Whereas free working people had very little time to stop and eat during the day, and even when they had time, where was the food?

On the other hand, it seems more likely that throughout the Greek and Roman antiquity, in normal times (peace, no epidemics, no draught, etc) the free working people had two meals a day.  For example the work of agrestes started at dawn, stopped briefly around noon for a bit of refreshment, when a meal was brought to them, maybe by women of the family.  Then work started again and ended at sunset.  Most likely their main meal was after the end of the day's work, after sunset.

 

And then, there were the philosophers, of who some recommended one meal a day, and some recommended vegetarian nutrition, and some even followed their own advice.  Probably together with some of their disciples and followers. 

 

So yes, it was a very diverse society, like today, only in different proportions.  And antiquity is a long stretch of history, during which habits and mores and ... meal-schedules varied.  Still, throughout it but few had the privilege of three meals a day.  Paradoxically, those who didn't were the ones who were making food happen.

 

The question remains: were these harmed by their meal-schedule?

 

 

* ... As far as this is concerned:

On 1/22/2021 at 1:21 PM, Beam Anne said:
Quote

"The Romans believed it was healthier to eat only one meal a day,"

 

it is from:

 

On 1/22/2021 at 1:21 PM, Beam Anne said:

and via Google I found only one more piece to support this information, but there is plenty published online about the three meals a day and about the lavish Roman banquets.

 

Yet emperor Marcus Aurelius was given to stoicism and frugality, so it is safe to assume that in his time this became a trend.  Seneca, besides being a statesman, one of the richest in Rome, and a playwright, is actually one of the most famous stoic philosophers, with a large following in his day, and a trickle even as we speak.  And then there was Epictetus, who had his own school.

 

And this is a version in English of Seneca's Letters, in three volumes:

https://tim.blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/taoofseneca_vol1-1.pdf

https://tim.blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/taoofseneca_vol2.pdf

https://tim.blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/taoofseneca_vol3.pdf

 

+

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus the Fox

That’s a question I’ve never thought of beyond my own requirements to keep personally healthy.  In way people have a duty for their own health, if morally or ethically, more people could take some responsibility of the self.  It isn’t saying healthy diet and more exercise isn’t always realistic.

 

I’ve had poor experiences with GPs where one will push for diet and exercise while not helping me at all and now that I’m more physically fit and healthy, GPs now are less likely to help me because I’m healthy lol.  I fear that the NHS messages do try to push a diet/exercise lifestyle, our NHS perhaps does have a ethical duty to health here.

 

With the events of Covid, this messaging feels much stronger especially with those with preventable risk factors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2021 at 7:17 AM, Perspektiv said:

I don't agree with mocking fat people, however but them feeling a slight social pressure and self conscious? I have no issue with this.

 

When I gained 70lbs from depression following my mother's death, people started commenting about me getting fat. 

 

I was in a rut, and it took a health scare to move me out of it.

 

Feeling horrible about it didn't help, but the slight shame to do things like wear a t-shirt helped motivate me to lose it.

 

Slippery slope though and one thing you're not considering. There's two kinds of shame. Self shame, which is the result of self-reflection and realization. And then imposed shame, which is dropped on you by outward factors such as people and their opinions. More often than not it's self shame that changes and motivates people, not imposed shame. Fair to assume that you changed because of self shame, is it not?

 

Here's the point for you to consider. If imposed shame in small doses is acceptable, then I'll ask you, where do you draw the line? If imposed shame is acceptable, then that means small religious communities can shame members who aren't religious, and it's fine. Because from the religious member's viewpoint, what they're doing isn't in the wrong, and it's for the benefit of the one being shamed. I could swap this out with any social happening and ideology or line of reasoning and it'd fit.

 

The problem with taking this stance is that you put an element of control and judgment into society's hands. Society demonstrates over and over again that it's entirely wrong most of the time, and that the motivations it claims to be a just cause actually only hold mainly veiled malice and ignorance. And the other key factor. Control. Shame is a tool used to control people. The US does it best. "You're not a patriot if you're X."

 

I understand that people are going to shame anyway no matter what anybody does. But opening the door to it willingly means you open the door to cult mentalities, which is the much greater evil that arises more than a positive outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, E said:

Fair to assume that you changed because of self shame, is it not?

I got sick and tired of people noticing I had gained weight.

 

They weren't doing it maliciously, but for me it was motivational.

 

If someone mocked me and told me I had let myself go, I would take that and add it to my fuel.

 

My mother had ballooned to over 300lbs late in her life. She was stared at  got laughs and giggles as she struggled to do certain things in public and just the sheer knowing people saw her as a joke got her to take daily walks and change her diet. She literally lost more than half her weight.

 

You're half right in a sense.

 

Whatever shot someone throws my way, I use as ammunition for my own growth. So is it mockery? Yes. But the fire burns from within. 

 

3 hours ago, E said:

I'll ask you, where do you draw the line? 

I draw the line at ridicule. At bullying. Assault and murder and so on. Someone asking me if I gained weight is equally damaging, but doesn't cross that line. To me, that's fine. I should be able to suck it up.

 

Someone telling me I should go to church, and leaving it at that, doesn't cross that line. 

 

If I can't handle subtle social pressure, I will suck at life in general, in being poorly adjusted to deal with it.

 

Someone feeling online shaming me for not going to church, making oink oink sounds when I walk past, to me have crossed the line. 

 

I remember a bus I was on and a bunch of teens were making fun of this obese girl likely in their grade. 

 

I stayed out of it. 

 

Then they started shooting spit balls at her. I am sitting ahead of her. They finally melt through her tough shell, and she turns around like she is about to cry, staring at them.

 

They shoot more. I had enough. A long staredown ensues  I get up, and stand between them and the rear doors. Right in the aisle a couple of feet away, to essentially dare them to hit me with just one.

 

No words were needed. They stopped. That's my line where I can't do nothing.

 

The girl was morbidly obese, and I would be prepared to bet was incredibly aware of it.

 

So rubbing it in on that level, will not help anyone.

 

Socially, we have become way too sensitive, but that's another thread.

 

That girl being that obese, was setting herself up for diabetes, heart conditions, and many other issues to where she would likely also struggle to hold down a job, requiring social benefits to get by.

 

All of which, because she can't stop eating. I can understand why some would hate her, but still don't condone the treatment obviously by my reaction.

 

I see it like someone on welfare because they are depressed. Haven't worked in over a decade, yet can play video games, can go out and build a shed, swim, do repairs but actual work...impossible.

 

For me I can't respect a social leech, as I have struggled with depression all my life. I choose to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I got sick and tired of people noticing I had gained weight.

 

They weren't doing it maliciously, but for me it was motivational.

 

If someone mocked me and told me I had let myself go, I would take that and add it to my fuel.

 

My mother had ballooned to over 300lbs late in her life. She was stared at  got laughs and giggles as she struggled to do certain things in public and just the sheer knowing people saw her as a joke got her to take daily walks and change her diet. She literally lost more than half her weight.

 

You're half right in a sense.

 

Whatever shot someone throws my way, I use as ammunition for my own growth. So is it mockery? Yes. But the fire burns from within. 

 

I draw the line at ridicule. At bullying. Assault and murder and so on. Someone asking me if I gained weight is equally damaging, but doesn't cross that line. To me, that's fine. I should be able to suck it up.

 

Someone telling me I should go to church, and leaving it at that, doesn't cross that line. 

 

If I can't handle subtle social pressure, I will suck at life in general, in being poorly adjusted to deal with it.

 

Someone feeling online shaming me for not going to church, making oink oink sounds when I walk past, to me have crossed the line. 

 

I remember a bus I was on and a bunch of teens were making fun of this obese girl likely in their grade. 

 

I stayed out of it. 

 

Then they started shooting spit balls at her. I am sitting ahead of her. They finally melt through her tough shell, and she turns around like she is about to cry, staring at them.

 

They shoot more. I had enough. A long staredown ensues  I get up, and stand between them and the rear doors. Right in the aisle a couple of feet away, to essentially dare them to hit me with just one.

 

No words were needed. They stopped. That's my line where I can't do nothing.

 

The girl was morbidly obese, and I would be prepared to bet was incredibly aware of it.

 

So rubbing it in on that level, will not help anyone.

 

Socially, we have become way too sensitive, but that's another thread.

 

That girl being that obese, was setting herself up for diabetes, heart conditions, and many other issues to where she would likely also struggle to hold down a job, requiring social benefits to get by.

 

All of which, because she can't stop eating. I can understand why some would hate her, but still don't condone the treatment obviously by my reaction.

 

I see it like someone on welfare because they are depressed. Haven't worked in over a decade, yet can play video games, can go out and build a shed, swim, do repairs but actual work...impossible.

 

For me I can't respect a social leech, as I have struggled with depression all my life. I choose to work.

 

The only problem here is that all personalities aren't built equal. Some people can rationalize being shamed, others can't. I guess my underlying thought on that is, would you classify shaming as a necessary component to really incite change? Personally, I don't think it is a necessary component to be shamed. All that does is open the door to subtle manipulation tactics and false self righteous causes.

 

Think about it this way. The only reason you'd say that shaming in any degree is okay is because you believe you're right on the stance you've taken. It's the very same mentality taken by all persecutors, past or present. They believe they're right, which is one reason why they justify what they do or say. That mental pattern is far too easy to repeat and multiply into worse things, such as riots.

 

You need to break apart emotionally what the act of shaming somebody is to understand that it's a useless mechanism that only feeds the ego of the one doing the shaming. The best way to do that is to ask yourself what you were feeling if you ever told somebody that they should be ashamed of themselves. There's two main emotional branches. Anger and disgust, then malice and indifference. You never shame somebody with good intent in mind. Therefore the act is an inherently negative one.

 

A person feeling ashamed is different than being shamed. As I said, it's feeling ashamed that drives a person to certain decisions. In every case I've ever come across, somebody being shamed by somebody else rarely leads to any constructive growth of any kind. In most cases, it fuels the opposite. More self destructive tendencies and further collapse inwards. And that has to do with the foundation of what shaming is, something inherently negative. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, E said:

The only problem here is that all personalities aren't built equal

100%. I agree. 

 

Point being made, that say someone is 400lbs and can't fit in an aircraft seat and is being charged for a second one. 

 

We live in a society, where me telling them the extra seat must be sold to them due to them not fitting, is now considered fat shaming.

 

Where if you require a forklift to be lowered into a casket than anyone saying anything other that "poor person", it is fat shaming. 

 

Whats wrong with addressing the elephant in the room?

 

How does one get that big? How often do they eat? 

 

I think its equally damaging to gaslight someone to thinking being morbidly obese is perfectly fine. It isn't. Its unhealthy. Deadly. There's tons of proof. It burdens an economy and costs billions in medical care.

 

Now some of these people want to claim disability money due to something the bulk have control over? 

 

To me, that's entitlement gone wrong. 

 

Think a developing country. Kids with ribs touching. Having to scavenge garbage cans to make recycled food  from the meats found in a McDonald's trash can or die of starvation. Watching people here crying because they can't stop stuffing their face. 

 

Just the utter confusion. Stop buying all that food.

 

You travel to places like Asia, and most are thin for a reason. Choices they make.

 

Blaming it on drive through, is not taking ownership for driving through the drive through.

 

Personalities differ sure, but this shouldn't remove the power of choice. Common sense.

 

26 minutes ago, E said:

would you classify shaming as a necessary component to really incite change?

To me, social pressure in some degree can be good. 

 

Hate racists? Apply social pressure to make them self conscious.

 

Obesity is burdening your social systems? Put forth fitness plans socially. Invest in bike lane infrastructure. Parks. 

 

To me, shaming and social pressure are bound by a thin line. As long as it isn't crossed, I don't have an issue with it. 

 

28 minutes ago, E said:

And that has to do with the foundation of what shaming is, something inherently negative. 

Correct, but why do they feel ashamed? There are social pressures, no?

 

I have no issue with those pressures.

 

I mentioned what I don't condone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

100%. I agree. 

 

Point being made, that say someone is 400lbs and can't fit in an aircraft seat and is being charged for a second one. 

 

We live in a society, where me telling them the extra seat must be sold to them due to them not fitting, is now considered fat shaming.

 

Where if you require a forklift to be lowered into a casket than anyone saying anything other that "poor person", it is fat shaming. 

 

Whats wrong with addressing the elephant in the room?

 

How does one get that big? How often do they eat? 

 

I think its equally damaging to gaslight someone to thinking being morbidly obese is perfectly fine. It isn't. Its unhealthy. Deadly. There's tons of proof. It burdens an economy and costs billions in medical care.

 

Now some of these people want to claim disability money due to something the bulk have control over? 

 

To me, that's entitlement gone wrong. 

 

Think a developing country. Kids with ribs touching. Having to scavenge garbage cans to make recycled food  from the meats found in a McDonald's trash can or die of starvation. Watching people here crying because they can't stop stuffing their face. 

 

Just the utter confusion. Stop buying all that food.

 

You travel to places like Asia, and most are thin for a reason. Choices they make.

 

Blaming it on drive through, is not taking ownership for driving through the drive through.

 

Personalities differ sure, but this shouldn't remove the power of choice. Common sense.

 

To me, social pressure in some degree can be good. 

 

Hate racists? Apply social pressure to make them self conscious.

 

Obesity is burdening your social systems? Put forth fitness plans socially. Invest in bike lane infrastructure. Parks. 

 

To me, shaming and social pressure are bound by a thin line. As long as it isn't crossed, I don't have an issue with it. 

 

Correct, but why do they feel ashamed? There are social pressures, no?

 

I have no issue with those pressures.

 

I mentioned what I don't condone. 

 

There's a difference between stating a fact and dropping shame on somebody with hostile intent. I'd agree that's where society goes astray. People put up their emotional responses first before listening to where a statement is coming from. Telling somebody they'll be charged for two seats on the plane because they take up two seats and weigh the equal of two people has nothing inherently to do with hostile intent, but expenses and mathematics.

 

Of course if we use this scenario alone, it has many different outcomes all based on how it's delivered. The airline person could deliver the statement harshly or mockingly, or as neutrally as they could. The receiver, in the vast majority of instances will have their guard up and take that as an attack. In likely cases they would feel shame and singled out. But in this instance, it's not done with malicious intent. This is the kinda shame that's brought on by self reflection and realization. It's internally brought on rather than externally bombarded. I'm sure you already know that a high ninety percent of people, when faced with a hard realization or call pick the easy road. It'd be much easier to blame the airline for being discriminatory than facing up to the facts, which deliver a difficult answer to deal with.

 

Quote

Hate racists? Apply social pressure to make them self conscious.

I think this comes down to a matter of opinion on my part, but I don't believe social pressure does shit. It doesn't solve the problem, it just sweeps it under the rug where it goes underground. Best example I can use off the top of my head is my workplace.

 

My manager is old timey sexist, big time. He's gotten into a lot of scrapes with upper management about it until they leaned on him. Social pressure, right? Now he keeps his gob shut at work. But nothing's been solved. He's still sexist. And now I have the joys of working with an individual who I know wants to make some lame ass statement, but won't because he's self conscious of his words.

 

The problem with social pressure is that's never thought out. It's always reactionary and emotionally charged. It makes no real moves of consequence other than dispersing and expressing group anger as a whole. Boycott a company because they said some stupid shit? You really think the company is sorry? Not at all. They're only sorry because their financial earnings took a hit. They then learn how to tread carefully with their advertising in the future. But the underlying issue of why they made the stupid statement to begin with is still there.

 

You know on thought, it's the equivalent to a parent spanking their kids. The kid typically fears the punishment for doing something wrong. Rarely do they ever stop to think about why what they did was wrong, and neither does the parent ever explain it to them. So the underlying issue always remains as long as nothing is understood, but fear of retribution and consequence stop anything from being done. Society's knee jerk campaigns to mount social pressure on certain issues are equally as hollow because of this. Outta time for now though. I know there's a middle ground to it all, since you don't exactly want to let certain groups off the handle either, but that all treads a thin line too.

 

I'll touch onto the economics parts you talked about later. You've got it inverted. People being sick doesn't cost the medical industry. It nets them gain long term if patients stay sick. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alaska Native Manitou
2 hours ago, E said:

People being sick doesn't cost the medical industry.

Sorry, you're right. I was eluding to tax payers. The medical industry makes a killing off of sick people!

 

The more medication I can shove in you, the better.

 

2 hours ago, E said:

Now he keeps his gob shut at work. 

With obesity that doesn't really work out. Either you lose weight or you don't. It will be blatant. 

 

2 hours ago, E said:

There's a difference between stating a fact and dropping shame on somebody with hostile intent.

Am sure you have worked retail. There is a difference sure, but in practice you might as well have said what you did with hostile intentions.

 

Obesity isn't amoral.

 

But to act like its fine to me, is not even medically accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Sorry, you're right. I was eluding to tax payers. The medical industry makes a killing off of sick people!

 

The more medication I can shove in you, the better.

 

With obesity that doesn't really work out. Either you lose weight or you don't. It will be blatant. 

 

Am sure you have worked retail. There is a difference sure, but in practice you might as well have said what you did with hostile intentions.

 

Obesity isn't amoral.

 

But to act like its fine to me, is not even medically accurate.

 

I'd agree, yeah. But how much do you want to push that narrative? Let's look at it this way. You're surrounded by people doing shitty things all the time. Either to other people or themselves. People drink all the time. People smoke all the time. They eat crap food, do a lot of shitty things and say a lot of shitty things. I personally despise drinkers and smokers, druggies. My very first instinct when I meet anybody that drinks or does drugs of any kind is to back right the hell off.

 

Of course I know all of these internal reactions are because I've lost friends and my significant other to a drunk driver, and plenty more from ODs. I rationalize that the person I bumped into who drinks booze in whatever amounts wasn't the person responsible. And I certainly don't give them shit either. I heavily disagree with their life choices, but ultimately it's their life choice to make. As long as they're willing to accept the consequences for their choices, and nobody else is being hurt, then why would I go out of my way to bother them? Especially when I can understand it from their shoes some times. And of course, I'm pretty sure you don't go out of your way to give people shit.

 

The problem mainly comes from narratives though doesn't it. On one hand you've got celebrities and media pushing the extremes of body types as an average, and the growing opposition trying to push the opposite of extreme fitness as being okay, when once again both sides lose sight of the sane middle ground that's more accurate.

 

You know, as tax payers whatever we pay for doesn't matter right? Why be picky about taxpayer dollars going to pay for medical expenses on the part of morbidly obese folk when those taxpayer dollars are abused anyway? Half the time they'll end up in some politicians bank account to go take a trip to the bahamas at peak covid rates, or to fund some other useless bullshit while they simultaneously slash budgets because there's not enough money to go around, supposedly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alaska Native Manitou

If you're worried about government spending, stop trying to deny people health care & do something about the $600 billion spent on the military.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, 2SpiritCherokeePrincess said:

If you're worried about government spending, stop trying to deny people health care & do something about the $600 billion spent on the military.

Priorities. I mean, what's more important? tax cuts for the wealthy and big corporations, or "luxury" items like healthcare? :P :( 

Link to post
Share on other sites

+ Yes, the healthiest move right now would be (to start the) dismantling of the war-machine and transferring its moneys to health-care for all, improvement of education, generalized organic farming, clean (i.e. non-polluting) energy and industry, reformation of the food and pharmaceutical industries by cleaning them of toxic additives.  It's up to US to demand what we know is right for US. +

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alaska Native Manitou

In fairness, the man complaining about money is Canadian.  Canada does spend more on healthcare than the military.  Why someone would think this is a bad thing, I can't imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 2SpiritCherokeePrincess said:

Canada does spend more on healthcare than the military. 

It relies heavily on the US, should an enemy try to attack us. 

 

Mind you, Canada is at a geographical advantage as you're either coming in from west or east, and are hundreds of miles to the biggest cities, or dare through the US or find a way to do it from the north.

 

A robust army is a major deterrent. I think military spending should be significant, but actual warfare should absolutely be avoided at all costs. 

 

I know plenty of soldiers and reconsidered the career wanting to work for the RCMP instead at the time. 

 

A country shouldn't have to spend billions to care for an ailing demographic  of people that grows younger by the year.

 

China canceled their plastic recycling programs just for that very reason. The dangers outweighed the gains. You were seeing a lowering of your life expectancy, costing China way more than it was making. 

 

It makes absolutely no sense to encourage a highly unhealthy lifestyle, when the cost of say, an entire nation being highly unhealthy would cripple it if it were almost all at once.

Link to post
Share on other sites

+ Some time ago a girl in a line started venting to me about her problems.  Said she was tired and getting infections and did not know what to do.  She said she was only 18, she was "too young for this".  I asked what her doctor had to say.  She said they checked her up and said she was "still alright" but 'needed to change her "food" and "maybe" her life-style, gave her a pamphlet; did not ask her if she could do that', and she said: "I can't".  I asked "why?".  She said: "you would not understand my family".  She lived with her family.  So I did not jump at that at first.  Just let her vent.  She said she worked "odd jobs", meaning she had some income of her own.  So I said maybe they did not have all the meals together, why not consider healthy food when she ate by herself.  She said: "We never eat at the same time, we're on our own.  I can't even remember when we last ate together.  We eat what we can get."  So, when she had money, she would buy fast food on the go.  I said: "Maybe you can change that.  Say you start eating breakfast.  You can get sugar-free shredded wheat".  (Thought she was going to quit venting to me after that, but to my shock) she rose her voice: "I did.  I only ate one time out of it.  My brother found it.  He ate the whole box.  You can't keep a thing like that in the house.  (Her brother was 14).  I said: "try hiding it".  "He finds it every time and empties it."  There was no food in the house.  I am not sure if they even had a working refrigerator, but it was "always empty".  My understanding was that the stove did not work.  My impression was that her parents were addicted to drugs.  It was heartwrenching.  For a while I felt like I was in that same bubble of abjection and despair.  What would I do if it was me??  I started from afar: "But you are not a minor any more.  You don't have to depend on them any more".  She: "You don't understand."  "I don't, but you can move out."  Her conclusion was: "You don't understand! ... Now I'm sorry I even talked to you". ...

 

[Since then I heard more stories like that.]

No.  I do not know what I would do if ::that was me::.  I do not know what is in everyone's life, who starts like that.  What I know is that for most there is a lot more, a lot worse than they would tell.

 

Health Care For All (at least as I see it) is primarily a function of The Family. 

Life-style starts before conception and continues throughout life.  Health Education is an (/possibly the most) essential part of Health Care.  These depend on Information.

"Accident" prevention and Prevention of disease are essential to Health Maintenance

People need material means for all these.  

If this were the foundation of health (care) and if this foundation were whole, then acquired diseases, including cancer, would be rare.  Eventually the genetic and congenital diseases, rare as they be, would outnumber them.  Until, finally, cures would be discovered for these too.

In an ideal HealthCare System where Life-Style and Prevention were the foundation, the 'outpatient Medical' would be secondary-care.  'Inpatient' (Hospitalization) would be tertiary care.  'Nursing-homes' would be rare, both because the elderly would not be discarded by their Family, and because in a healthy society the vast majority remain independent functionally (regardless of how advanced in age they might become), until the end of their life.

 

We The People can achieve this.  The point is We need to start somewhere.  And the question is: when do We start?

 

So when she blocked me like that, I told that girl "I know I can't understand.  But you know you need to build a better life for yourself." + 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alaska Native Manitou
5 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I think military spending should be significant, but actual warfare should absolutely be avoided at all costs. 

spacer.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 2SpiritCherokeePrincess said:

spacer.png

Idk why, but your pictures in particular don't load for me. What's in the picture?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 2SpiritCherokeePrincess said:

spacer.png

Tell that to all the countries that have been invaded. 

 

You must prepare for war, but put heavy handed diplomacy where there may be conflict. 

 

I see it as no different than me owning a weapon. If it's locked away, and never used, it's a sign conflict is not something I seek. 

 

However, try to rob my own home, and I will not go down quietly. I work too damn hard for what I own. I would be wiling to die for it. 

 

I see military investment as the same thing. 

 

One shouldn't back down in conflict, but an actual military conflict can always be avoided. 

 

Honestly. North Korea will never attack the US, because of the heavy handed return fire that would return their way. 

 

The military being as powerful as it is, is why they are respected, even if disliked by many, globally. 

 

The US' might being so vast, they don't even hold parades to display it, speaks for itself. 

 

To say military spending isn't necessary to me, is like those wanting a dramatic reduction in police budgets or even an eradicating of the force, oblivious to the high crime rate in many major US cities. 

 

Criminals will just realize police is gone, and peacefully go on their way? 

 

For one to add to a society's burden on purpose, is like someone living a life of crime and being okay with being a statistic to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alaska Native Manitou
On 1/26/2021 at 9:01 AM, Perspektiv said:

A country shouldn't have to spend billions to care for an ailing demographic  of people that grows younger by the year.

If your home catches fire or is burgled, don't you dare call firefighters or the police.  Your fellow Canadians shouldn't have to pay for your lack of fireproofing & security.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2021 at 3:31 AM, 2SpiritCherokeePrincess said:

If your home catches fire or is burgled, don't you dare call firefighters or the police.  Your fellow Canadians shouldn't have to pay for your lack of fireproofing & security.

That doesn't even make sense.

 

Most people don't choose to be burglarized or to have their apartment building or homes catch fire.

 

Morbid obesity for the most part, is a choice. Healthy lifestyles or unhealthy ones, are a choice.

 

Sedentary lifestyles, are a choice.

 

Morbid obesity isn't a disability for the most part--its a choice.

 

Alcoholism. Drug addictions. Choices. Once addicted, this can be debated, but to put the drugs in one's body to deal with problems, that initial heroin injection or crack pipe lit up, were conscious choices, for the most part (some could have it laced unbeknownst to them).

 

Smoking, is a choice. Again, the addiction and difficulty to stop is always up for debate, but again--the choice to do so knowing the consequences, is a choice.

 

These people have the legal right to medical care, regardless to the above.

 

Nobody can remove that right from them. In some countries, they may have to pay out of pocket for it, even.

 

But for one to spend an entire life, of being a burden to the government, vs a one off event of a fire or robbery?

 

How is this remotely comparable?

 

A better comparison, is someone going to jail, and choosing to stay within that cyclical lifestyle of crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...