Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No offense intended, but I think the word "obviously" should be stricken from usage, except perhaps in instances of intense irony or humor. When I was in law school it was constantly used by this coterie of boys who were the poorest thinkers, the least able students. Nothing is ever really obvious as the word is used, as a general rule (e.g., Hillary Clinton is "obviously" . . whatever.) It just doesn't seem to add much to the discussion, and what's "obvious" to the speaker is by no means obvious to anyone else.
My goal with respect to examining issues, and particularly dietary ones associated with social justice issues, is to at least attempt two things: clarity of expression and an openmindedness to new ideas. Whether I achieve this or not is probably unlikely, but my intentions are good.
If you have to say “no offense intended” then you are being offensive ,obviously
A lot of my dietary habits were formed by my family who didn’t believe is constant grazing and snacking. You rarely ate between meals which isn’t to say we were not allowed the occasional fruit to stave off hunger until dinner time, an ice cream on a Sunday ,or the occasional sweets. We were also encouraged to take a stroll 30 mins after dinner. The big thing though was high school classes on health/nutrition/planning a menu/ marketing/ and cooking. For some reason schools stopped teaching these.
The big thing though was high school classes on health/nutrition/planning a menu/ marketing/ and cooking. For some reason schools stopped teaching these.
I'm sure it's because the budget got cut.
It would be very helpful as a practical matter, as would teaching some sort of financial planning.
They don't do that either, so what do we have? Lots of broke, obese people!
I'm sure it's because the budget got cut.
It would be very helpful as a practical matter, as would teaching some sort of financial planning.
They don't do that either, so what do we have? Lots of broke, obese people!
Such a lack of planning and thinking outside the box since math and other essential skills can be incorporated into teaching cooking,nutrition, marketing etc.
No offense intended, but I think the word "obviously" should be stricken from usage, except perhaps in instances of intense irony or humor. When I was in law school it was constantly used by this coterie of boys who were the poorest thinkers, the least able students. Nothing is ever really obvious as the word is used, as a general rule (e.g., Hillary Clinton is "obviously" . . whatever.) It just doesn't seem to add much to the discussion, and what's "obvious" to the speaker is by no means obvious to anyone else.
My goal with respect to examining issues, and particularly dietary ones associated with social justice issues, is to at least attempt two things: clarity of expression and an openmindedness to new ideas. Whether I achieve this or not is probably unlikely, but my intentions are good.
On the other hand you just made a post about your obvious problem with my choice of diction. That's rather the opposite of clarifying anything or being open-minded. Frankly, the food desert issue isn't relevant to most people. It's important for the people it does affect but for most of us even if we live in one it's not a big deal as we can just get in our car and drive out of it. That's really all my point was.
Of course, if you'd care to clarify your apparent point that it's not obvious that we an abundance of cheap, unhealthy food, go ahead. Seems rather obvious to me that we do, but it's a fair point that some people may not think so.
As noted the concept is controversial and does not negate free will and personal choice. But hey, worth a shot for a compulsive eater to try psychotropics or behavioral therapy. Personally, if I couldn't stop myself from eating all the donuts I would try those before say bariatric surgery.
As noted the concept is controversial and does not negate free will and personal choice.
It's far from controversial, and no one said anything about the assumption that the genetic component "does not "negate free will and personal choice."
The interplay between food addiction and mental disorder is controversial. In the broad sense, food lights off pleasure centers of the brain and anything that lights off pleasure centers in the brain can be addictive. But not all obese people are food addicts and not all obese people have a mental disorder. Some do, but you have to look at the clinical picture beyond this person has a BMI greater than 40. That the having a mental disorder or food addiction, or both interposed on one another, is certainly possible. You cannot, however, just take a BMI of 40 and say food addiction.
Your first like actually did say it does not negate freewill and personal choice. Same for drug addicts. Some people have a predisposition to becoming addicted to drugs. That doesn't mean they can't choose to stop using them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
