sticking our liberal noses in your life
I would argue though that today’s “liberals” are the authoritarians as they can’t seem to stop sticking their noses in to the most personal aspect of our lives.
What kind of lightbulbs to buy, how much sugar to consume, pronoun usage, personal healthcare coverage, blend of gasoline, square footage of my add on bedroom, my pet’s reproductive choices, whether or not I’m allowed to buy wine over the internet (mess with my wine and things get serious) and, I kid you not, enforcing permits for kids in my neighborhood to run lemonade stands. And you best not complain lest you offend someone and be sent off to microagression training. (Tricia on Left Loserism)
Recently, I’ve read a lot of complaints about liberalism. Let’s look at the first few in Tricia’s list:
1. Lightbulbs
Tricia seems to be oblivious to the fact that our global population is booming, and energy production isn’t finite. I’m assuming she’s annoyed that she’s being pressurised to change her lightbulbs to ones that emit the same level of light using 80% less electrity and last years longer. Why is she complaining? No idea. Lower electricity bills, less bulb waste and less pressure on the grid.
2. Sugar
Obesity is booming in the world, and the cost to human health and shared society expenses is immense. Manufacturers producing food with levels of sugar that aren’t fit for human consumption should, in my opinion, be subject to regulation. Ignorance about food is mind boggling. If something is sitting on a shelf, out there for sale, people will buy any old poison. Just like we can’t buy drinks laced with arsenic, I don’t think we should allow companies to sell drinks with 25 teaspoons of sugar in them. You want one? Make it at home.
3. Pronoun usage
I live in a world where for most people the default person is a man. Why? I’m not teaching my daughter that women come in second place to men in all things, and that men are default. Let’s mix up our pronouns and given women the representation our numbers in the general population demand.
4. Personal healthcare coverage
We probably agree on one thing here – the US health system is atrocious. It’s embarrassing. And I can understand how people who have been used to comfortably choosing every aspect of their own healthcare may feel annoyed with recent changes. But the truth is that the USA is the only country in the developed world that doesn’t have universal healthcare. Your liberals may be annoying you, but they want more. They want every person in your country to get equal healthcare. I know, disgusting! Imagine, poor people in the bed next to you and the doctor taking their health as seriously as yours …
I could go on. Anyone else is welcome to tear apart the rest of her list. Liberals tend to pressure for change in areas that should benefit all society. I know people don’t like change, but when evidence tells us there’s a better way to do it, we’d be fools to complain about saving energy, protecting healthy choices, making the females of the world feel they might be default too, or even looking after the health of everyone in our society. Unless you can show me evidence to the contrary.
It’s neither the topics nor suggestions that are the problem; the problem is the assumption that policies should be forced on others… supposedly for their own benefit. This is authoritarianism of the Left to a tee and it’s a growing problem.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Education should be forced on people. Aristotelian logic should be taught in high school (accessible to all, not only those who attend university.) And history- much, much more history. People don’t know history. It’s annoying. And literature.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, some things should be forced on people that are essential to the common good. But I suspect someone misread Titus 1:11 and thought they were talking about ‘filthy sucre’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m concerned about the lack of emphasis on history in education these days too. People emerge from endless years of education with no sense of how human societies evolved.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What do you mean “forced” on people? Like when we force people to put seatbelts on children in cars, or we force them to drive at speeds that significantly cut deaths on the roads, or we force them to accept that they can’t have arsenic in their drinks at Starbucks? Like I said at the end of the post, unless someone has evidence that the government we elect is not acting in the best interests of the people who elect them, it seems absurd to complain about these measures. It’s not authoritianism, it’s taking care of each other and respecting all life on our little planet. They are exactly the kind of concerns I elect people to take care of. Interestingly enough, the people who panic about the government being too involved in their lives seem to the ones who never leave their home state. It’s small-minded paranoia based on understanding very little about the world. (Yes, I completely made that up, but I suspect it’s true.)
LikeLiked by 3 people
So the argument is over whether left or right is more authoritarian? In this post you seem to admit the left is authoritarian, but has lofty goals, therefore the authoritarianism is A-OK. If people are opposed to those wonderful goals they are just plain evil so I guess they deserve a big left-foot jackboot on their neck.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Is one more authoritarian than the other? I don’t know. My argument is that expecting elected politicians to introduce measures that improve quality of life for humans is a given. If you have evidence that voids any of my arguments please feel free (I’ll pop over to your post in a minute …)
LikeLike
While those were some poor examples, the trend to try to bubble-wrap society can go too far at times.
LikeLike
Give me an example. If measures are introduced that aren’t improving life or are indeed harming life, then obviously the evidence will show they should be rescinded.
Take banning alcohol for instance. Although it looks like a measure that could technically improve human society, reducing violence, crime and many health problems, overall the evidence has shown that banning it causes even more problems.
LikeLike
At my work, renovations of the office has resulted in a lower ceiling for the storage space above. There are stairs leading up to that storage space … apparently in case of fire, having stairs up there promotes usage and is somehow more unsafe than having a ladder up to the storage area.
Because somehow a ladder is safer for getting outside in case of a fire than stairs.
Also, as we have a warehouse down the street, I have wondered about the conflicting regulations of not sticking arms out beyond the forklift safety cage vs arm signalling your movements out on the road (though it’s a seldom used dead-end street, so not a significant worry).
And then there’s those times when portions of feminism are getting away with more than equality …. I forget exactly what that issue was that I came across, I’ll have to see if I can dig that up again, as done with feminism conversations as I am at the moment.
But it does seem that the edges can blur at times between what is a conservative stance and what is a liberal stance on a subject.
LikeLike
Most of the health-and-safety-gone-mad complaints baffle me. I’ll have to be personally on the receiving end of it and not have access to the problems that created the rules. They’re usually based on something, and if they prove on too many occasions to be pointless or counterproductive, changes are made. In the end, more lives are saved. In Argentina, people think it’s health and safety gone mad to put a seatbelt on, nevermind put a child in car seat. It’s expensive, so I understand it can be impossible. But it’s weird seeing kids bouncing about the back seat like it’s the 1970s … I like bubble wrap. I like feeling like we’re doing the best we can to protect people.
LikeLike
I personally prefer it to be more to the side of being evidence-based rather than closer to being knee-jerk emotional responses.
LikeLike
Ah, it was about “feminist” Anita Sarkeesian going ot the UN to promote something along the lines of internet censorship for those who disagree with her brand of feminism.
LikeLike
Sounds interesting, I’ll try and have a look.
LikeLike
She’s also been known to get Twitter to ban those who question her viewpoints under the guise of online harassment.
I guess you could say she is along the lines of a strong conservative within a liberal movement maybe?
LikeLike
“Give me an example. If measures are introduced that aren’t improving life or are indeed harming life, then obviously the evidence will show they should be rescinded. ”
Forced vaccination, for instance.
Yes we’ve been there. But why should a newborn baby (with nary an immune system yet) have to be forced to receive a potentially lethal vaccination against Hepatitis B – because in a far-away third-world country this STD is killing a lot of promiscuous adults?
Some vaccinations make perfect sense; but the timing and the type should be discussed in detail with the parent, rather than simply imposing a law that forces everyone to take every vaccination on the charts, like it or lump it, whether the newborn baby has an immune system or not. (No newborn does! Immunity at birth is passive – the own immune system is only completely mature at around 3 years of age.)
There is your example.
LikeLike
My kids eating and drinking sugar in quantities considered unhealthy is not risk to you. Your kids not getting vaccinated puts all of us at an unnecessary risk.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not at all, because if your child is vaccinated against the disease my child purportedly carries, how can your child be at risk? After all it is vaccinated. Or are you saying that vaccinations don’t really work – in which case how will you convince me to put my child through them?
LikeLike
By saying this, you demonstrate a level of confusion about how vaccination works and so you are making decisions based on misunderstandings and a level of ignorance. Inevitably, this produces poor decisions. This can be remedied.
So the answer to your question is because vaccination is a herd protection and not a chemical suit of armor.
That’s why even vaccinated people can still get the diseases they have been inoculated against. Furthermore, by not vaccinating, we do have significant outbreaks of preventable diseases where the risks and lasting damage are incredibly higher than from adverse reactions to the vaccinations themselves and, sure enough, some of the victims of this senseless and selfish parenting that produces ripe conditions for these preventable outbreaks have been vaccinated. That’s why vaccinations should not be left up to those who don’t understand why the science behind the reasons to vaccinate has achieved consensus.
I think if member of the public chooses not to vaccinate, then they should have no access to any public institutions, services, or infrastructure whatsoever that puts any other member of society at risk.
LikeLike
So now you’re a virologist on top of being an Antarctic geologist and meteorologist? Could you please explain to the Stupid on this blog exactly how vaccines are produced, and how they interact on a molecular level with the immune system, and how on Earth a vaccine that fails to produce a protective immune response in each individual, should magically start producing this response when injected into 100 individuals (each of which fails to be protected personally)? Your lack of logic boggles the mind.
LikeLike
Perhaps this chart might help you.
LikeLike
I see the discussion of the chart is already attached on your blog. No need to add. As long as it’s not mandatory yet in South Africa I guess I can still relax. We have plenty of bigger fish to fry. Disease of all sorts comes streaming in, non-stop, over the borders. It would not only be insane to try and vaccinate all of South Africa against every virus coming in, it would be completely impossible to implement.
You didn’t answer my question. Did you know that every time you take a vaccine (well, almost every time), it is live virus being injected straight into your blood stream, bypassing all your body’s natural barriers (such as the mucous membrane of the nose – no reference to abortion, or in fact your unpunctured skin)? Are you aware that there are other things that are injected into you alongside? Impurities and adjuvants? Well… it’s not my job to educate you or change your mind… party on Garth
LikeLike
Yes some are live but they are intentionally weakened. You are simply fear mongering here. Or being idiotic in the face of overwhelming evidence of safety. I’m choosing to go with fear mongering but you seem determined here to try to uphold all denialist and conspiracy claims with really bad reasons so we’ll see.
LikeLike
“Overwhelming evidence of safety”, “fear mongering”. Actually, most vaccines do not use attenuated virus (which is still live) but the full-strenght version; they rely on a low dosage of the pathogen to find the balance between a deadly disease and immunity. Read your own medical files, Dr Everything.
You are fear-mongering when you spread your end-of-world BS.
I am not attacking the concept of a vaccine (though there is indeed a lot that can be and isn’t being improved, but I won’t discuss this with a layman like you), I’m attacking the concept that people’s choice is taken from them by a forceful dictatorial government.
LikeLike
Can you provide a link to a peer reviewed academic paper backing this up i.e. evidence? Here’s one explaining why universal vaccination is the best way to go for Hep B:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11474704
LikeLike
It’s okay. As I said.
LikeLike
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4025887/ Meet the sponsors. For starters, we are living in a time of unbelievable large-scale scientific fraud. It would have been considered fraud 2 generations back (it was already entrenched 1 back) if someone with a vested income in the outcome sponsors a certain type of research.
Pubmed is sponsored by the large pharma who make a truckload of cash yearly out of selling vaccines. Of course they would push that newborns have to be universally inoculated against an STD that 20 years back only people at high risk had to be injected against: Doctors, hospital staff, lab staff, etc. I took the Engerix B in 1995 because I was working with human blood and tissue samples in a rural hospital on a daily basis. If you read in Lancet, http://sci-hub.io/10.1016/0140-6736%2893%2990123-x, you will find there are all sorts of side effects reported against the HepB vaccine, and many of them mimic side effects of the disease (surprise surprise: You are being injected with the disease, why on Earth should you show symptoms of it?).
While the articles in Pubmed are peer-reviewed, there are a lot of other peer-reviewed articles that never get to publication in these sponsored journals because they don’t suit the agenda. Recently in fact a spate of doctors have been found mysteriously dead who (strangely) all were veering away from the mandated vaccine doctrine. If you have to kill the person who disagrees with you, it stands to reason they may have such a valid point that unless you kill them, people might start listening to them rather than you.
But I’m not disputing that vaccination is a theory on which we all were raised along with cornflakes. I’m merely disputing that the state should overrule the parents’ primary right to make decisions for their children, in this commercially driven world.
Orwell, 1984. People who advocate that the state should have such absolute power, are driving the world into that condition. We are not ants; our immune systems are not ants, either. I wonder what your views are on homeschooling, and on allowing children a variety of school subjects, and on people being allowed to air their opinion online. Would you prohibit all these in the name of conformity?
LikeLike
This is a great topic Violet. What would you say about banning cigarettes? There doesn’t seem to be anything good about them and they cause serious health problems down the line.
LikeLike
Late reply, I’ve been off blogging. I wouldn’t ban anything, more trouble than its worth in terms of underground markets. Extra taxes to make people think twice (like we do anyway) and public health campaigns to make the dangers clear (like we do anyway). What do you think?
LikeLike
1. There is no population problem.
That is because each human being is a limitless resource of talent and wealth creation.
Besides, all the people in the world could fit in the single state of Texas, USA and live comfortably.
Consequently, attacking the light bulb in the name of population control is irrational.
2. Sugar
Sugar is not the cause of obesity. People are the cause of obesity.
Since the government cannot cure obesity, the idea of using the law to force people to eat less is genocidal.
This was proven by Stalin and Mao. They cured their population and obesity problems by starving 10’s of millions of their own citizens to death.
3. In English the gender neutral pronoun is “he.”
Does the vagina really get to redefine the English language so it (the vagina) can feel better about itself?
4. The US medical system was the best in world.
ObamaCare had nothing to do with healthcare…
…just as lightbulbs have nothing to do with population control…
…sugar has nothing to do with obesity…
…and the English language has nothing to do with the importance of the vagina.
Therefore, through simple reason we can determine that liberalism victimizes the stupid so that self-indulgent do-gooders can feel good about themselves and the power-mad tyrants can have limitless control over society.
LikeLiked by 3 people
(*roaring applause!*) I was trying to find a way to make exactly those points. Well, with variations of course, but the kind of ignorance that suggests that overuse of sugar (of all substances) should be the root cause of obesity, and that obesity somehow would cost the community extra health care… it’s like saying that redheads should not have children as red hair has been linked to a specific rare metabolic disorder and therefore every redhead having a child is committing a crime against humanity. About that level of fish logic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Read a little gispika. Do you know how much sugar people are mindlessly feeding children and how this is seriously affecting their health?
http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2013/02/28/sugar-intake-diabetes-and-kids-qa-with-a-pediatric-obesity-expert/
LikeLike
Violet,
“Lets do it for the children,” is a typical guilt trip that liberals use to justify do-gooderism and ruthless tyranny.
The trials and travails of sugar have been taught in the public school system for decades.
LikeLiked by 2 people
However, the post was not about how much sugar people mindlessly feed their kids (which is shocking, I know, at least as a parent one ought to read up a little on how to feed a child a healthy, balanced diet), but on the impact of obese people on overall health costs to the society, and therefore “justification” that laws ought to be issued to control how people feed themselves. I don’t disagree that giving your small child fizzy drinks on a daily basis is basically stupid (btw here’s a link that throws a different light on insulin and the sugar metabolism), but is that the call of the State, or the parents?
Also, there was a lot less obesity when we were kids – but there was quite as much sugar if not more, in the shape of sweets, chocolates and fizzy drinks. What there was not, was GMOs. I notice America is the only country that allows food producers to feed consumers GMOs unlabelled while making sugar out to be a devil. Makes you think how much of this politically drive is commercially motivated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Labeling GMOs is a win only for the anti-GMO Luddites.
LikeLike
Don’t you think it’s wise to be cautious with GMOs? We have a bad history of not properly grasping long term consequences of seemingly helpful inventions. I’m thinking if certain drugs that weren’t fully tested, or just generally fiddling with fragile ecosystems, deforestation and flooding, that sort of thing. Inventing new crops and such like seems fraught with potential disaster to me. I’ll remain cautious while trying not to slip into conspiracy theory or paranoia.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Caution, sure.
Sounds oh-so-reasonable. And that’s why the Merchants of Doubt – those who assume ‘natural’ is automatically ‘better’ than ‘artificial’ – peddle it. Caution in this sense is exactly what is desired for those merchants: caution synonymous with anything that hinders GMOs. This is why Bill Nye – once he realized what he was doing peddling doubt on behalf of the scientifically illiterate – visited labs that worked on genetically modifying foods and turned his opinion 180 degrees. GMOs are not just a life saver but a means to feed billions and billions of people. Relying on ‘natural’ foods is a guaranteed way to mass starvation and everything that entails in a world undergoing severe climate change. That’s what ‘natural’ means in reality and the future being invited by those who buy into the doubt… in the name of caution, of course. And isn’t caution reasonable?
Well, caution based on misconceptions about their potential for harm is not reasonable. Often – and usually – the topic of GMOs it is accompanied by a complete misunderstanding of risk and an unrealistic understanding of the role of concentration in toxicity versus an understanding of how we metabolize energy and nutrients from food.
LikeLike
At the risk of adding conspiracy theory to injury: There are a large number of things wrong with GMOs. Except for long-term health effects that were only found once such studies were done by an independent researcher (read about the Seralini studies, the controversy and the way Elsevier embarrassed themselves), the very premise behind Monsanto’s strategy is corrupt:
Their seeds give 1 crop – and the seeds from that crop are sterile. So the farmer cannot apply the basic principle of farming of the past x thousand years, to keep a portion of the seeds back to sow again the next year. Instead, he becomes economically dependent on Monsanto, having to buy the next lot of seeds again, the next year.
This disaster spreads to neighbouring farms by means of wind pollination; so the adjacent farms get damaged by having semi-sterile seed corn too.
Even if there were nothing else wrong with today’s GMOs, that alone would be cause enough to call for a ban. Don’t you think?
LikeLiked by 2 people
And btw, 70% of our maize in South Africa is Monsanto maize – and the farmers collectively complain that not only are the yields not better than what they had previously, they are getting worse by the year. So much for feeding billions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is interesting. It would mean that in the nearest future Monsanto will have a monopoly on plant-based food production.
= our enslavement proceeds as planned (and no, not by the evil leftists).
LikeLike
Yes, ever since the evil corporate overlords forced selective breeding on us, we’ve been pawns of Monsanto.
Good grief.
LikeLike
Are you being ironic?
(I think you are, but I’m not sure. Sometimes it is hard to tell on themz interwebz.)
In any case, can you expand on your comment?
LikeLike
Yes, I’m being more facetious than ironic but the point is we’ve been doing what amounts to genetic modification forever and towards the purpose of getting a better food supply. But today there is a group of denialists who spread disinformation and vilify genetic modification by equating what is now a ubiquitous and common standard of crop science – genetically modifying crops – with Monsanto’s pursuit of profit. Their agenda is not to improve the human condition but use that advertisement as a shield behind which I think they can hide their need to feel like informed saviors of the planet for us little people.
LikeLike
I have not looked into GMO and have been blissfully unaware of the controversies up to now.
Will try to read up on it. What would you suggest as a starting point?
LikeLike
That is precisely what would happen if Monsanto were allowed to gain world-wide monopoly. I shudder to think what it means for the planet, because here in SA, Monsanto yields are already beginning to fail.
No conspiracy theory intended. 😉 This is not fear-mongering but just a bit of background.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is new to me, so I cannot opine in any reasonable way; but it does appear that Monsanto would have a huuuge edge here, which it may not necessarily use for the benefit of humanity.
I love corporations as much as the next US Supreme Court Justice, and believe they are great people ‘n all; but, just like great people, they may not necessarily be the law-abiding citizens or altruists we would like them to be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually they weren’t even the first to come up with that kind of concept. Our local govt institution for agriculture has been crossing tetraploid maize with diploids (both stable, self-reproducing strains) for ages to produce triploid maize (physically bigger, better, higher yield – but all the seedcorn sterile due to genetic imbalance – how do you divide 3 by 2?). When we first learnt about it in genetics class we were horrified.
LikeLike
Oh – you’re ok with GMOs. I get it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There was quite as much or more sugar when we were kids? Absolute nonsense. You’re using a poor memory or biased imagination. Check out the graph in this article, sugar consumption has rocketed, hand in hand with childhood obesity:
http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/4/899.full
As to the point about financial cost to society, point taken. What’s much more pertinent is avoiding unnecessary suffering that results from ignorance. People genuinely see nothing wrong with giving kids loads of sugar in drinks and sweets, as part of their everyday diet. Society has lost perspective on this, and resents being “guilt tripped” into denying kids what all their friends are having. It’s one thing to choose as adults to poison our bodies, another to damage a child’s body before they can make their own informed choices.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You know, I’ve found it very difficult to change a convert’s mind on anything. You go on believing what you do. It’s not my job to inform you, actually.
LikeLike
Of course not, because your belief isn’t based on fact. You’ll go so far as asserting there was more sugar in our diets in previous decades, flying in the face of recorded fact. How can I start to believe anything you say on not one shred of evidence?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, I said there was as much sugar available back then as today. Go back in your mind and walk into the corner cafe back then and look at the sweets shelf, and the cooldrinks fridge. If you had pocket money, you had exactly the same opportunity of overfeeding yourself on sugar as kids have today.
LikeLike
Yep, sounds reasonable. I bought sweets every day on the way to school from the little shop at the top of the street where I lived an there was always sweets at the school tuck shop.
My fillings are testimony! 😉
What has arrived in the interim that likely aided in the massive upswing in obesity?
I’m no statistician but I can guess. Video games, play station etc for one thing.
More TV.
Lack of exercise,and an overall increased sedentary lifestyle.
I can speak from personal experience in this particular score.
Also the higher consumption of ”junk” food is also probably a factor.
GMO foods to feed billions? Hmmm. Why not simply encourage smaller family units for one thing?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yayy! My backup has arrived! 😀
LikeLike
Don’t hold your breath. I expect to be slaughtered in the upcoming comments!
And don’t get suckered in too deep by SOM.
He is a Giant Arse Hat of the 1st degree.
But it’s nice the warden allows him access to a computer.I just hope for the other inmates it is secured to the table.
LikeLiked by 1 person
😀
LikeLike
Jeez, what’s in the water down there? She applauded SOMs comment!! It’s a fact there is a ton more sugar in good today.
LikeLike
Or is it that there is just more food with sugar in?
And when I say more sugar I am referring to the supermarket-fast-food-variety, etc
I am merely taking a flyer here.
LikeLike
The good news and the bad. A declining birth rate but an increasing population. Nine billion (~) by 2050.
Now add climate change and shrinking arable land.
So while we’re busy talking to paternalistic societies about why more men should go along with empowering women’s reproductive decisions, should we re-purpose the 170 million hectares already under GMO production?
Is there some new continent-sized land available I haven’t heard about?
Perhaps we should be satisfied that we in the opulent West can afford the much higher priced but lower yielding ‘natural’ farm products so that we can feel good about not supporting factory farming while the rest of the global population can make whatever mandatory changes to their shrinking diet, and loss of fresh water and arable land and declining fish stocks, they feel is necessary (like the large rural to urban migration in Syria prior to the Arab Spring?).
Granted GMOs are not the solution but I think they are very much a part of addressing major food issues. Those who fear such Frankenfood probably have been eating GMO food – mostly all the staples – for decades… without so much as an extra limb growing out of their foreheads. But for those already sold on the fear offered in no short supply by the Merchants of Doubt regarding GMOs, no amount of evidence from reality is going to assuage them. They will turn a blind eye to their role in helping to produce the right conditions for mass starvation and migration accompanied by tragic civil unrest and greater food inequality… usually by blaming the West for some prior ‘imperial colonization’. These inevitable and preventable byproducts of the head-in-the-sand naturopathic approach to food matters not a tinker’s damn to those who just know that Frankenfoods must be bad.
LikeLike
So what was the point of the rest of the comment?
And if not the solution might they become the problem in the future?
Just asking …
LikeLike
I thought I was clear: GMOs are not the solution, meaning that they are not the entire solution but they are very much a part of the solution and a necessary part of the solution to reaching sustainability for all. Hence, the reason for the rest of the comment as to why this is the case.
LikeLike
So if they are not the solution but only a part of it… what is ?
This was the point I was trying to get across.
Sorry, Tildeb, but the bulk of your comment seemed pretty much a rant to me.
And what about the reliance on GMO producers as the sole providers of seed? Any merit in this suggestion?
LikeLike
@ silenceofmind – thanks, 🙂 you got there first!
@ violetwism – presuming I don’t read is a little fallacy. I tend to read everything on everything, that way I get to find some unusual perspectives. I can discern what is mainstream guiltmongering and what is emotive writing and what is true research – can you?
LikeLike
Apparently you can’t. Where are your links to actual research? Wait till I tell Ark you like SOM’s comments! 😀
LikeLike
Why, is SOM one of Ark’s favourite Christian antagonists?
LikeLike
Indeed. He holds him in high regard.
LikeLike
That is funny, but if you think I’m here to fight the Good Fight for Atheism, you’re misinformed. I’m not interested in that. The definition of Freedom of Religion (may it live long) is that everyone can find their own path to happiness.
LikeLike
Except where Ken Ham and his Dickhead cronies are involved in poisoning the minds of kids.
Dinosaurs on the Ark ( not me) etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have to admit I really sometimes have to bite my tongue, and repeat to myself, mantra-style: “It’s not my fight, it’s not my fight…” 😉 Especially when the logic starts taking a down-turn.
LikeLike
Nothing like this is technically ”our fight” but the impact on everyone is always felt – eventually, be it religion, fast food, Sony Playstation, or Dickheads like SOM.
LikeLiked by 1 person
😀 There’s that.
LikeLike
I would venture that most people just want to wake up and ”know” that things will run smoothly.
We all expect things to break down every now and then, but we also expect that they will be fixed in time for dinner, no matter what they are.
Truthfully I could not give a shit if Ken Ham builds his Ark ( not me) or not.
However, I would be concerned if his Creationist crap was suddenly being taught in schools so in this instance, damn straight I am all for Government stepping up to the plate and saying ”No way, Jose!”.
Now, if only they could find a way to encourage people to stop eating beef burgers and bacon?
And maybe expose Jesus for the fictitious bi-sexual little narrative construct he really is?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You see, there it is again: The element of choice.
People must be allowed a choice to believe all sorts of weird philosophies. But parents, acc. the Human Rights bill, have the First right to decide what their children are taught – so the state overruling that would be a problem.
People will still eat beef quite a bit, regardless how you & I feel about it. We haven’t extended animal rights that far yet. On the contrary, the whole “banting” fad has just jumped up meat consumption. (I’ve been trying to find a website that instructs me how to “bant”, as vegetarian, and… well, it’s nuts. It’s basically nuts.)
LikeLike
Human rights enters a grey area where a child’s rights are concerned especially where it is seen as usurping parental rights over their kids.
And this is evident where religion is plays a central role in family life.
Remember the circumcision issue a few years a few in the European Human Rights court?
SOM is a Catholic, for example.
So’s my missus. But I’ll guarantee they have some marked differences regarding their religion!
That parents can home school is excellent, if the means are available.
(I know you did)
But also the level of basic intelligence of the parents must be evaluated for the sake of the child. I know you made the grade – just 😉 – so we have nothing to worry about, and knowing your kids they seem to have turned out okay.
However, what sort of job do you honestly think Creationist parents will do?
What sort of mental damage will be done to such children?
Choice? Yes, but with safeguards.
As for beef and government intervention?
I think you’ll find that as soon as there is more money to be made from not eating meat it will be pushed like crazy!
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL thanks for your vote of confidence.
Safeguards: Yes. The general school leavers’ certificate (whatever it is called in all the different countries) should provide that by setting the standard. This ought to ensure that regardless of what philosophy they follow, at least kids know about whatever is relevant. (There is such a wealth of what is “relevant”.)
But the safeguard also gets abused, in the name of big profits. There was a time when e.g. an HIV+ woman giving birth was forced by the state to allow the hospital to dose her newborn baby with AZT (which, I heard, compares to the harshest of chemotherapy) or have the baby removed by social services and herself labelled “child abuser”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And as for links to actual research – what do you mean? I linked to a youtube video by an actual researcher and dietician (one who understands the actual metabolic processes) because a video is easier for you to understand. I thought she explained the process pretty well. I don’t see you linking to any real research; all I see is you using Google and your own style of “logic” and a very staunch refusal to look at any evidence to the contrary.
And this is about issues that don’t even matter that much. Do you or your children have a hyperobesity problem? Will you somehow end up in hell if you fail to proclaim sugar as evil? Did a hyperobese person ever do something to you, personally? If you answered no to all three, then how can the topic possibly be so important that you’ll defend your opinion to the death in the face of opposing or conflicting evidence? It’s not as though I’m challenging your religion!
As for the evidence linking electronic media to neural damage in developing brains, I hope you can read German, because here is the most relevant book:
LikeLike
You linked to a video of an individual giving personal opinion. Peer-reviewed work published in an academic journal, such as the many links I’ve provided, is what is normally accepted as credible evidence by experts in any given field. I’m sure you know the difference.
Am I defending to the death here? You’ve not made a single credible point when it comes to sugar. Or Hep B. Yet you’re suggesting I’m blind to the obvious, brainwashed or deluded. I think I’m understandably confused.
I completely agree that too much screen time is damaging to children’s developing brains. That too is established fact. I just thought it was interesting given the context of sugar, that someone had suggested sedentary lifestyles revolving around screens may be a result of sugar. No idea if that is true.
LikeLike
Wait – let me double-check what video I linked you to. If I didn’t accidentally link you to a totally unrelated video, it is supposed to feature Tabitha Hume, qualified dietician, explaining the metabolic process of insulin release and resistance in a way that a layman can understand it. The “individual” is a scientist and her “opinion” is the (many-times) peer-reviewed result of years of research; however the video is her making it palatable for the general public. But, that is if I actually linked you to the correct video! Let me go check.
LikeLike
Oh, but you definitely misread something there! I never said sedentary lifestyles revolving around screens may be a result of sugar! That’s just patent nonsense, no wonder you’re confused! Where did you read that??
LikeLike
This conversation is getting very confused! I’m going between a tablet and a mobile, so I can’t follow threads back as easily as I usually do. I meant I read something about that (nothing to do with you) and it struck me as funny given your comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I think there are too many threads now. LOL
LikeLike
Are you being satirical…?
LikeLike
1. There is a potential population problem looming. It’s not so much the amount of people per space, it’s the amount of resources and harm to natural habitats and systems that the world’s growing population disturbs and disrupts.
2. Too much sugar can definitely be a problem. Too much of anything can be a problem, and with sugar being used to capture people’s tastebuds to the extent that it can be used – that creates a potential problem of overuse of sugar in all facets of food in order to drive people to choose those foods over others, which leads to unhealthy choices. Trusting people to be aware of all that is foolish. Some reasonable controls can definitely be a net positive to society.
People can be fairly easily influenced with misinformation. Just look at Donald Drumph’s support in the US. Blaming the people is a poor argument.
3. Language reflects history and is constantly evolving. Just because something is used historically does not mean it should continue to be used in the same way.
4. Obamacare has to do with making healthcare available to those who can’t afford the absolutely ridiculous costs of US healthcare, from my understanding. What good is a healthcare system if most people can’t afford it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, I thought your comment was good enough to leave as a standard for utter stupidity, but you have fans! So I’ll have respond instead of distracting you.
1. The lightbulb issue is related to energy limitations, not how many people you can fit in Texas. Many countries are suffering powercuts because they can’t generate enough electricity to meet demand. Read about India, South Africa and Egypt. The UK is at breaking point too. Any measures to cut down on power usage should be welcomed.
2. People eating too much sugar (which is often irresponsibly marketed at children) is a major cause of obesity. You like this?
“Obesity has led to a dramatic increase in the incidence of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) among children and adolescents over the past 2 decades. Obesity is strongly associated with insulin resistance, which, when coupled with relative insulin deficiency, leads to the development of overt T2DM. Children and adolescents with T2DM may experience the microvascular and macrovascular complications of this disease at younger ages than individuals who develop diabetes in adulthood, including atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, stroke, myocardial infarction, and sudden death; renal insufficiency and chronic renal failure; limb-threatening neuropathy and vasculopathy; and retinopathy leading to blindness.”
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/116/2/473
3. Language is in a constant state of evolution. It is not carved in stone, it never has been. It’s a communication tool that can easily be made more efficient and effective without causing damage to anyone. “he” is not neutral, so logically why continue to use it as such?
4. I’m glad you are happy with your healthcare system. Do you know anyone who’s had financial problems because of a serious or terminal illness? It doesn’t happen to the same extent in other developed nations. Do you know anyone who has died because they couldn’t afford appropriate treatment? I do, in the USA.
Therefore, through simple reason, we can deduce that you were just stirring a pot, and it’s disturbing that anyone would agree with you! 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
1. Government-mandated light bulbs will do absolutely nothing to address the power consumption problems of developing nations.
They need to go to nuclear or fossil fuel power generation and build more power plants.
Generating more power is how a power shortage is solved.
Creating overpriced, high mercury light bulbs is the last thing developing countries need.
2. Overeating is the major cause of obesity. That’s just common sense.
3. That language develops over time is not the issue.
The issue is the vagina losing self worth because the gender neutral pronoun in the English language is “he.”
Such thinking insults the vagina.
4. Your reasoning here is yet another liberal guilt trip.
The solution to any problem in healthcare is definitely not found by turning the entire healthcare system over to the government.
The government is dumb, ruthless, self-interested and as such cannot be used to address social problems.
Only individuals acting in concert with one another can solve social problems.
LikeLike
1. Energy efficient bulbs are cheaper for everyone, save poor people a fortune. Why do you want to burden them with higher electricity bills?
2. Overeating sugar maybe? http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/20/sugar-deadly-obesity-epidemic
3. She turns away and sighs.
4. If you feel guilty, it’s because you’re thinking something bad.
Yes, individuals can do so by electing representatives to fulfil their wishes, sometimes called ‘the government’.
LikeLike
Violet,
Elected representatives are not genies at the beck and call of the electorate.
Elected representatives are self-interested human beings who all of a sudden have unlimited access to the sumptuous public coffer.
Additionally, elected representatives who are self-interested above all else (just like everybody else), write laws that enhance their own power and wealth.
To expect the government to act in the interest of the public is naïve beyond understanding (ie typically liberal).
Liberals need to wake up and understand the concept of self-interest in the human animal and the significance of handing that self-interested human animal unlimited power.
LikeLike
@ Violetwisp, I see you mention South Africa’s “power struggles” (pun intended, that’s exactly what they are) so I feel compelled to give a bit of background.
Eskom, our sole producer of power, is a “parastatal”. It belongs “semi” to the state and then to a few rich investors. Like many things that have fallen into the hands of our current regime, (pls read up on “Zupta” if you are worried about my useage of the word “regime”), the “plan” is to milk the population and squeeze as much money out of a system as they can without ever bothering to maintain.
Last year some of our silos literally came apart due to 20 years of neglect. New power plants that were on the plan in 1996 were never built. Our population has expanded by 10 milion people yet no plan was made to meet the increased demand by increased production. On the contrary, electricity gets piped into Zimbabwe for free on top of our own load, to support a politically struggling neighbouring dictatorship at the cost of SA’s paying citizens.
Most urban areas in SA pay high rates for electricity; there are areas though that use as much as they like and never get billed.
Also, we had regular blackouts (“load shedding”, they call it) last winter, until nothing else happened than Eskom was given a grant by government for R3 billion. Then magically, and immediately, the cuts stopped again. Go figure. It is their bargaining post. I would argue that South Africa generates enough power to cover own demands even without building more structures, if they only stopped shipping it off to Zim for free.
Here are a few more snippets: During the cuts, people bought generators. They are noisy and horrible but businesses need to continue. Also, I heard of at least 3 different people personally who tried to import / design effective and affordable solar cell based generators / alternative design electricity generators to sell on a larger scale, and were beaten down by government. Competition with Eskom, which may well solve the problem, is not allowed.
Please don’t mention our weird, corrupt kleptocracy as an example for a country struggling to supply electricity. The “crisis” is entirely politically engineered here.
LikeLike
Thanks for the clarification. The fact remains that South Africa, along with India and the UK, and many other countries, struggles to meet demand. Using less electricity by replacing bulbs to more modern energy efficient varieties helps ease pressure, and cuts personal costs. There is no reason to view those bulbs with suspicion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is indeed no reason (except that they do contain mercury and are therefore a risk); that’s not the point. All my lightbulbs are long-life (maybe that’s why my family is a little mad). The point is, does a government have the right to regulate the market like this? It’s not as though the Tungsten bulbs presented a bigger health risk than the fluorescent ones do. It’s somehow just not on the same level as the legislation that protects non-smokers by making it illegal to smoke in a car with non-smoking passengers.
LikeLike
You and I have had the sugar discussion before. I’m not in favor of a nanny state. Do I believe that regulations should be in place to inform people of what ingredients in what amounts are in the things they’re consuming? Of course. But I don’t think it’s the government’s place to tell us what we can and can’t drink. Do I think sugar is a drug? Yes. So is marijuana. I think the U.S. War on Drugs is an utter failure. It does seem to me that what some are suggesting is that we need to government to save us from ourselves. I don’t necessarily agree with that. People should be free to make their own choices about things. The alternative is that we all just become Stepford children.
As far as things like light bulbs go, that’s an environmental concern, so I’m not concerned that there are regulations changing how those are produced.
Some of those things Tricia listed are likely local/state issues and/or specific to her neighborhood. If I want put an addition on my house no one can tell me how many square feet it can be. But if I live in a covenant neighborhood they can. Which is why I don’t live in a covenant neighborhood. Covenant neighborhoods are typically status symbols and I could care less about that. I’m not going to spend my money on a property to be told what kind of window coverings I must have.
There is a common misconception that universal healthcare means one doesn’t have choices about there healthcare and that the government tells you what treatments you can and cannot have. That is no more true than with private health insurance. Your insurance company sells you a product telling you what treatments are covered. If you want to have any treatments outside of that coverage you can but it will be at your own expense. Cosmetic procedures are an example of that. Most coverage has lifetime limits which once exceeded are at the individual’s expense. It would likely not be much different than what they already have.
LikeLike
If you think sugar is a drug and potentially harmful, are you in favour of something being done to protect children from over-consumption? The effects of diabetes in children aren’t pretty, even if you’re happy to accept the adults do it to themselves (which is ridiculous because it usually starts in childhood …)
Yes, the government is there to save us from ourselves. As I’ve said before, we elect them to represent our best interests, to concentrate of evaluating the evidence available in every aspect of life, to make human societies nicer/healthier/fairer. There’s simply too much information in life to process and they are paid to bring in expert opinions and evaluate these things on our behalf. I have no idea how many calories mean anything or how much sugar means anything. I can make food myself from basic ingredients, but I want to be able to pick up ready made food when I need it and not worry it’s going to give me a heart attack or diabetes. They’ve recently introduced a traffic light percentage system on food here, which gives you a break down of things like saturated fats and sugars in food based on the recommended daily allowance. Very useful.
I read something you left in the comments of another post somewhere recently that is along these lines. You said you only follow the speed limit because it’s the law. I choked. Surely we follow speed limits because they are in place to save lives! It’s not a killjoy government trying to stop your speed rush, it’s based on the number of people who die when we go over certain speeds.
LikeLike
Do you think it’s at all possible to protect people from every possible harm? Should we go around putting bumper pads on every possible surface? Are you saying that you think government should be responsible so we don’t have to be? That people shouldn’t have to educate themselves or be educated? Why even bother with an education at all? Let’s just let the government tell us all what to eat or drink. You think people are smart enough to make all sorts of decisions that impact their lives, but not whether to drink a soda or not? I’m sorry that does sound a bit lazy to me. Had you paid close attention to the content of my comment I said that I agree that things should be labeled. But, yes, I think it’s up to individuals to make decisions that are either healthy or unhealthy. As far as protecting children? I’m entirely down with that. Are you suggesting that sugar stop being sold
LikeLike
I read about the label bit, that’s why I mentioned the traffic lights, they are useful.
I think we should definitely be trying to protect people from things that harm them, especially in great numbers, and great cost in terms of suffering. I suspect you do too. I suspect also that you are burdened with the fear that is so typical in the USA about Big Brother governments, not so much taking your guns away, but doing something baaaad. I’m probably burdened with with something polar opposite, somehow, but we’ll never know.
As far as being lazy, I know nothing about the levels of toxicity in any given substance, but I’m sure someone advising someone in government does; I know nothing about how many people are killed in urban areas with a limit of 25mph as opposed to 20mph, but I’m sure someone advising someone in goverment does. You get the picture. I’ll admit I’m lazy, but even if I wasn’t, I couldn’t possibly be an expert in everything …
LikeLike
No, you can’t possibly be an expert in everything. But you don’t need to be an expert to care for the health and welfare of yourself and your children. I mean that it broad sense of you, not you specifically.
I’m really not that concerned with Big Brother. It’s not something that really even crossed my mind.
LikeLike
I really was making a joke about the bat out of hell thing. I don’t always follow the speed limit, though. Do you? Always?
Our roads are so much different than England’s roads. I don’t know about the ones where you live. Most of the roads here are a bit like the motorways in England. If I lived there I might not even choose to drive. I’d probably use public transit. The roads there are so narrow and the way you have to pull to the side to meet an oncoming car I doubt I’d even be able to build up enough of a head of steam to speed. 🙂
LikeLike
You’re right, the roads are very different. I grew up in country roads where my dad, the local doctor, scraped up bodies of young kids tearing round country roads. I guess those stories make me take cars pretty seriously. I don’t drive that much, one of the benefits of living in the UK, but I’ll have to admit I do sometimes push past the speed limit to get past annoying cars if I’m on a motorway. *hang my head in shame* Never in the city. I think the public service announcements of my youth where toddlers run out between parked cars are etched in my mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, yeah I could see that. The particular area I live in cars aren’t parked along the side of the road in residential areas. The only roadside parking like that is in commercial areas where the shops are. I always drive really slow there.
LikeLike
I hit send before I was done.
Are you suggesting sugar shouldn’t be sold? Or that parents shouldn’t be responsible for the health of their children?
I’m all for labeling and educating people about the dangers of sugar consumption. But the simple fact is some people do become addicted to sugar. Most people don’t. Additionally, I think the problem might be tackled a bit differently than banning certain drinks or foods. Highly processed pre-prepared foods are loaded with all kinds of unhealthy things-sodium, sugar, preservatives, food dyes, etc. These foods, here, also happen to be cheaper than fresh, all-natural products. Which makes them attractive to people on a budget. If healthier options were available at a comparable price would be helpful.
Marketing is also an issue. Someone here pointed out that these sugary foods were marketed specifically toward kids. Healthier options should also be marketed directly toward kids. Not only that, parents should be able to tell their children, “no”.
In moderation sugar is typically not a problem. I also know that children who develop type II diabetes didn’t develop it overnight. Physicians in America get a bd rap for telling patents they need to control their children’s diet or that their child is overweight because it harms their self esteem. That’s nonsense! It is a doctor’s job to evaluate the health of a child. They also educate parents on better and healthier choices. A parent who walks away from that and doesn’t at least try to follow the doctor’s advice are likely not putting their children’s welfare as a priority.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s a complex area, I guess like everything else. I don’t know what the answer is. But suggesting that governments attempting to deal with sugar’s part in the problem is authoritarian seems to trivialise it all. If people aren’t making sensible choices for themselves, and especially for their children, then clearly something should be done. Like I say, drinks with 25 teaspoons of sugar simply should not be sold!
LikeLike
I think we agree in principal that too much sugar is not healthy even if we differ on what we think the solution might be. I’m certainly no expert but I read the label on everything I buy from the market. I know what the government’s recommended daily allowance is. I know everyone doesn’t do that but it’s available.
Does your government publish recommended daily allowances for nutritional intake?
LikeLike
Yes, I’m sure it does. I don’t pay much attention. I’m beginning to suspect we have completely different attitudes towards food which might account for how we both view this. I’m a fuel eater, and I eat pretty basic stuff as and when required. I don’t look at labels because I generally buy basic pasta, veg that doesn’t require any thought. I go by basics of grain, 5-ish fruit and veg, protein and fat, because I know it’s what a human body can healthily survive on. My diet has simplified even more since having kids and watching the effects of sugar on behaviour and sleep patterns, and suspecting the effects of preservatives on behaviour. There’s little enough pre-prepared food that it doesn’t really matter what’s in it. And although I’m blasting sugar here, I’ll take it any day over any kind of artificial sweetener. No fizzy drinks/soda because my teeth are falling out – gum disease is a big influence on my diet too …
LikeLiked by 1 person
VW, seems as though you make pretty responsible choices as a parent. Artificial sweetener (also touted as “safe” by the marketing forces) has been linked to other serious health problems. The most aggravating finding is that it doesn’t even “make you thin”; aspartame triggers an insulin response similar to plain sugar, so nothing is won on that level.
I raised mine on balanced meals, healthy snacks and water. Fresh food is at least a bit cheaper here than processed food. They do drink coffee now they are teenagers (this is going to trigger another debate, I can feel it in me bones), and they do add a teaspoon of sugar which I feel is not over the top. Their drink of choice is still water though. Filtered.
What concerns me more is the current world-wide obsession with saturated fats. Some fad has made them very fashionable; and after decades of being implicated in heart disease and obesity, suddenly saturated animal fats are all good and can be eaten in large amounts. This strikes me as counterintuitive. The ketotic approach only works when you eliminate all forms of carbs from your diet, including fresh fruit. There are so many health benefits associated with the different fresh fruit that I can’t see how cutting them out can lead to better health. But it’s extremist. For most normal people, cutting take-away foods and sodas out of their diet will probably already solve the riddle.
LikeLike
“For most normal people, cutting take-away foods and sodas out of their diet will probably already solve the riddle.”
I suspect you’re right that this would make a significant impact. Any kind of ‘miracle’ diet beyond this should make people suspicious – cutting out on concentrating on specific groups of food doesn’t seem to make sense. You’ll never take coffee away from me though! 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry about the Lancet comment – rather, the tone of it. TildeB got me riled up with his singularly simple style of copy-paste polemics. You, I know, have a sensible attitude when it comes to practicalities. He on the other hand is a fanatic. I haven’t yet found a field in which he doesn’t hold a “doctorate”, while not grasping the very basics of the science behind it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Too funny. Yes, Tildeb knows everything about everything. Thanks for the links, I lost the thread on this one and need to go back to it all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Tildeb knows everything about everything.
I Knew you were going to say that.
LikeLike
I once read that China’s child obesity problems only began after MacDonalds and Kentucky etc were introduced as part of US/China traded agreements and quickly began to supplant and /or compete with more traditional cuisine/foods.
Can’t produce figures or even a link for this though, so I might be just blowing hot air.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Got to pitch in here, too:
You said: “If you think sugar is a drug and potentially harmful, are you in favour of something being done to protect children from over-consumption?”
I don’t think sugar is a drug. I think Ritalin is a drug. Sugar is a foodstuff that, like salt, can be harmful to the digestive system in concentrated form. In diluted form it is but a foodstuff, and a very bioavailable source of glucose, which is our primary form of energy supply.
We also have a secondary one, the body is clever: We can break down amino acids and lipids. This happens when there isn’t enough glucose, and the body lapses into a chemical state called “ketosis”. A generation back, doctors would still go onto panic station if a woman entered ketosis during birth. Ketosis results from (a) not eating anything over an extended period of time (which, you may note, may well lead to weight loss, referring to silenceofmind’s points about Stalin), or (b) studiously avoiding anything that contains sugar or any form of carbohydrates.
Do you believe bread is a “drug”? Here’s news, kiddo: Bread gets broken down to glucose in your digestive system, it gets converted to glucose even faster than cane sugar does. Do you know about the concept of “glycaemic index”? The GI of bread is 100 – the same as pure glucose, and higher than dextrose (table sugar).
Ketosis was regarded as a “condition” a generation back; now it’s the new ideal and normal blood sugar levels being regulated by normal insulin reaction are regarded as “pre-diabetes”. My mind boggles at these fad “nutritionists” and all they will do for publicity. Two decades back it was the concept that anything coming from animals is “poison” to your body (milk, cheese, eggs, meat); now, not eating animals, and eating fruit instead, is “toxic”. It is all marketing, VW. Someone had to get rich; someone had to get famous. Someone gets to profit, and people are expected to follow like sheep and “pay here, please”.
What we did have more of, a generation back, was responsible parenting. There was no money to throw out on fizzy drinks and sweets, in our house. We baked a cake every Sunday. My mom cooked (and still does) wonderful, home-cooked meals, with veggies, meat and starch in the perfect balance as taught in her day. I see to it that my children eat quality food, regularly, even though working hours throw the schedule a bit at times. I was shocked to find out in a parent-meeting of my third child’s grade 1 class that some people give their kids packets of chips for breakfast, and toxicolor cooldrinks instead of water. But the first things that come to mind are not obesity (most kiddies in the school are wiry little dynamos) but ADHD, hyperactivity and dental damage. And it’s not so much sugar triggering the ADHD but the colourants, preservatives and flavouring chemicals. The brain goes into chemical shock.
If you want to crusade against a drug, consider Ritalin, and also consider electronic media for kids. Extensive neurological studies have shown the immense damage caused by the latter to young developing brains. Would you consider blocking your children from watching TV and playing computer games until they are 16? Those games are the main contributor to a sedentary lifestyle that may well explain a lot of hyperobesity in American children.
LikeLike
Interesting. I just read that kids may be attracted to the sedentary lifestyle of TV etc due to the over abundance of quick burning sugar in their diet.
I wouldn’t block my kids from TV but I certainly limit it. Do you block yours? I also started avoiding food with certain types of preservatives after noticing a pattern of hyperactive-like behaviour and tantrums after certain foods. I can’t imagine considering giving a kid drugs for hyperactivity, I’d explore all nutrition options and lifestyle changes possible. But I wouldn’t judge, maybe that’s what every family in that situation does, and there’s nowhere left to go.
The problem with new conditions and treatments is obviously that the evidence base is low, it’s wise to be cautious when it comes to any kind of drug-based treatment, if at all possible.
Sugar is a drug. Unless google is broken. You got evidence to the contrary?
LikeLike
“Sugar is a drug. Unless google is broken. You got evidence to the contrary?” I think you answered your own question. If Dr Google is your only reference point, then indeed you can only echo its trendy opinions.
Define “drug”. Marijuana is a drug, and so is cocaine. Walk into a drug store and you’ll meet a lot of drugs. Go into a place where they rehabilitate drug addicts, and I’ll bet you won’t find a single one that is in there because of… wait for it: Sugar. They will laugh you out of the house if you ask.
LikeLike
“Our findings clearly demonstrate that intense sweetness can surpass cocaine reward, even in drug-sensitized and -addicted individuals. We speculate that the addictive potential of intense sweetness results from an inborn hypersensitivity to sweet tastants. In most mammals, including rats and humans, sweet receptors evolved in ancestral environments poor in sugars and are thus not adapted to high concentrations of sweet tastants. The supranormal stimulation of these receptors by sugar-rich diets, such as those now widely available in modern societies, would generate a supranormal reward signal in the brain, with the potential to override self-control mechanisms and thus to lead to addiction.”
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000698
“The reviewed evidence supports the theory that, in some circumstances, intermittent access to sugar can lead to behavior and neurochemical changes that resemble the effects of a substance of abuse. ”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/#!po=3.05466
LikeLike
Yup, I thought those would be the ones you’d link to. (Actually I’m impressed: They do follow the scientific pattern. I’d thought you’d link to something a lot more googlish and less scientific.)
Spitzer actually discusses these exact effects.
Dopamine and body-generated opioids are brain transmitter substances that form part of our “reward” system. (The opioid is not generated by the sugar but by our brain, if you read carefully. Sugar does not contain opium.)
Similar reactions have been found (read the book, I think it’s available in an English translation too) for people playing computer games. And people playing musical instruments. And in fact, a person learning something new that excites them. The reaction is also achieved during sex…
“Therefore”, asks Spitzer, (rough translation by me) “what have we here? Is it the ‘learning’ centre in the brain? Is it the ‘addiction’ centre? No – it is the reward centre.”
Simply, the reward centre. Had a lot of researchers flummoxed.
What I still can’t figure out is this:
Have you actually ever seen or worked with, an ADHD kid?
How on Earth can you link sugar as the cause for ADHD and obesity at the same time? If it makes you hyperactive, how on Earth can it at the same time make you fat?
LikeLike
Eh? You brought up ADHD as a separate topic. Sugar has a bad effect on my daughter, she doesn’t have ADHD. She does often get a ‘difficult’ energy rush after having it, and has trouble getting to sleep if she has anything too sugary close to bedtime. I suspect that’s fairly normal, maybe I losely used ‘hyperactive’ and it’s got confused.
LikeLike
Ok, but I think I found the comment in which you got confused. I actually never linked sugar to a sedentary lifestyle & telly. If you read carefully, in 1 paragraph I discuss my shock at finding out how some parents actually pack their kids full of sugar, additives, MSG and other chemicals before school, but what comes to mind is not obesity but ADHD et al. Then in another paragraph I suggested we look at electronic media exposure for an explanation in the sudden, very real obesity epidemic in children, rather than to sugar. Media make kids sit still for long times, which can make them fat. Did this help?
LOL don’t give sugar before bedtime. 😉 A sugar “high” after a party is quite normal, and a subsequent “crash” due to the efficient (and normal) clearing function of insulin; but a better way of getting them sleepy is warm milk and a bedtime story. Enjoy your kiddies! They are so precious when they’re so small 🙂
LikeLike
I:ll just mention that Ritalin is a safe drug, as drugs go, with a long history of successful use in treatment of ADHD (which is s real condition).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed it is. But we don’t know why it’s so prevalent, do we? And is it unreasonable to suspect the current surge in diagnosis could be due to general changes in diet and lifestyle? I’ve not looked into it much, so genuine questions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The reasons for surge in diagnoses are indeed unclear.
Diet and lifestyle, though, should always be addressed.
LikeLike
Aha. I get where you got confused. It’s not an either/or.
If you remember about 2 decades back, there was ADD, which is the basic inability to maintain focus. Only later did they add in the H for children on a sugar rush. ADD is still around; if a child is a dreamer, they are labelled ADD and if they are a “troublemaker” they are labelled ADHD. The condition itself does exist but is so overdiagnosed, it fudges the readings of what exactly could cause it.
The school system itself can cause “ADHD” diagnoses (usually misdiagnoses). Forcing children to sit still on chairs for 6 hours a day, this is contrary to what the human body is adjusted to. I would even suggest a link to obesity here too: Teachers don’t have the imagination to let kids have a break, stand up, sing, walk around the room in a game. They expect them to sit still like little office workers. Many little bodies can’t tolerate this; some pack it in and get completely lethargic in an adaptation to circumstances, and others “break out” and fidget and wiggle and act out. So the mom calls me at the genetics lab (2001), asking for a Ritalin script. Well, I’m not the pathologist, I can’t prescribe it, and I’m not the doctor’s secretary either, but I asked, like I was told to, “is your child an existing patient?” – ” No, but the class teacher said he’s hyperactive and must get Ritalin.”
The teacher?? Really? Can I see her medical qualification please, to make such a diagnosis? To say I was furious was putting it mildly.
There was even a teacher at my younger daughter’s school who dished out Ritalin to children she considered “hyperactive”. She called the pills “vitamins”. I found out via a friend whose child had received such unauthorized medication. Luckily my daughter was never given such “vitamins” despite her active nature.
LikeLike
Of course ADHD is a real condition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tricia was absolutely correct in her assessment when she said, “today’s “liberals” are the authoritarians as they can’t seem to stop sticking their noses in to the most personal aspect of our lives.” Total authoritarians, with a side of fascism thrown in for good measure.
Light bulbs, about ten times the price of the old ones, don’t work in older fixtures, catch on fire, and due to mercury must be disposed of at a hazard waste site. A lot of poor people are sitting in the dark right now. Also, want to talk about the new light bulb tax? Let’s add a 50 cent tax to those already overpriced toxic bulbs…
Sugar? Oh totally, like sugar is a sin, so lets sin-tax sugar. You shameful fat people, repent and submit to our discipline. Also let’s subsidize corn and give tax breaks to ethanol and corn syrup! That way we can just replace sugar with the new, but far more toxic sweetner, corn syrup! Yay, let’s put it in absolutely everything too, so it’s practically mandatory….
Pronoun usage? For crying out loud, be ye stupid? Let’s ze, zir, and cis-neuter women right out of the equation entirely, devaluing the feminine, shaming women for being women and not men, and than let’s call it…..progress.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Good reply Insanity. Your comment about lightbulbs rises to the challenge – you’ve provided your evidence as to why replacement of lightbulbs may not be as effective as it would first seem. When they introduced them in the UK they were ridiculously cheap or even free, if I remember correctly, so that people could replace all the lightbulbs in their house. But I have counter evidence, check out the table at this link:
http://www.thesimpledollar.com/the-light-bulb-showdown-leds-vs-cfls-vs-incandescent-bulbs-whats-the-best-deal-now-and-in-the-future/
Over 23 years, one of the old bulbs you want to keep in use costs poor people $200, while the energy efficient alternatives cost $40 to $50. What kind of bills are you suggesting people should have??
And I have no idea why you’re talking about corn syrup, this conspiracy theory has obviously not hit my radar, I’ll look into it. We’re talking about serious health problems related to sugar consumption, not just criticising people’s weight in a randomly judgemental manner. We’re talking about childhood obesity and diabetes that ruins lives.
As for pronouns, I’m not surprised you don’t agree there. ‘He’ all the way! You should tell your chums in manosphere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
My previous comment that you labeled “stupid” is almost identical in content and meaning to IB’s comment which you labeled as, “Good reply.”
Clearly, whatever it is you have going on inside your head, is governed by bias, not rational thought.
LikeLike
Sorry SOM, I must have misread it. I was just annoyed that someone praised you. You know how jealous I get.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sugar is also implicated in a whole variety of other disorders, systemic (like arthritis) and organ-specific (like heart disease, fatty liver disease), caused by inflammation which sugar helps create in our bodies.
Sugar is suspected to be at least partly responsible for depression and poor mental functioning, and quite possibly for Alzheimer’s disease. Studies show that reducing sugar consumption and increasing intake of “good fats” dramatically improves memory and overall mental functions in elderly people and Alzheimer’s patients. Ketogenic diet — a diet high in fat with no to very little sugar — has been used as a successful treatment for epilepsy for almost a hundred years now.
Awful as it is to admit for a dessert lover, there is really nothing good about sugar, other than its taste, and the evidence of its harmfulness is piling up. There are respectable researchers who believe that sugar is today’s tobacco, and should be regulated similarly. One of the reasons for lack of such regulation is the opposition from the sugar lobby (shades of tobacco industry’s fight to poison the world for profit).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Authoritarianism | Truth and Tolerance
As a school nurse, I have to come down against the side of the sugar/childhood obesity holocaust that is happening in the US right now. A very indicting series is HBO’s “the Weight of a Nation”, and how advertising markets to children. It is a more complicated socio-economic problem than mere government involvement, however.
I have no problem with the personal pronoun “he”. Personally, I’m secure enough in my identity, and hopefully have taught my three daughters to be also. It is merely historic/cultural in nature, (as opposed to French, which defines everything as masculine or feminine, if I remember correctly.)
My mother-in-law lived in Great Britain for many years, and warned us to not allow socialized medicine. But again, what’s the answer? I’m just not smart enough. I’ll bow out here.
LikeLike
Well, I’m glad at least one person can see the sense in tackling sugar consumption.
Language always changes. It makes no sense to have one gender that represents half the human population also represent neutral. It’s illogical.
Socialised medicine? That’s hilarious. Obviously there’s always room for improvement, but the principle of everyone being able to access free healthcare is important. I suspect you’re aware of the suffering that insurance-based healthcare brings. And the dangerous incentive to sell things. Our healthcare tends to focus as much as possible on prevention.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So interesting that you mention black market health care! Yes, I had also thought of that, with many very dangerous implications! Thank you for tackling some complex issues. I’m always wanting us to think “what’s best for the children”. Unfortunately, there are so many strings attached there too.
LikeLike
Calling universal healthcare “socialized” is like calling an army of the nation, the law enforcement and fire department “socialized”, if they were not provided by the private sector. Of course they are “socialized”. That does not make it bad. Socialism is an ideology for the good of the people and social justice. And like all human made ideologies sometimes it works and sometimes it does not.
As for the pronouns, in my native Finnish we do not have any gender specific pronouns, nor have we ever had them. I can see how they are a part of cultural heritage, and that gives such some value. Yet, they are totally unnecessary in human speech, but looking at the issue from outside, it seems to cause actual harm.
Overt sugar consumption could be remedied by informing people of the hazards involved. Overt salt consumption was remedied here in Finland by a government funded information campaign ages ago and of course laws, that demanded, that the contens of the product is printed outside the box in wich it is sold. Who regulates that that information is true if not government officials? But who can the people trust in this age of contradictionary information and fad diets, if they do not trust their own government to rely on the best possible information?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Overt sugar consumption could be remedied by informing people of the hazards involved. ” I am happy for you if this works in your society, but I am very sad to say that such is not the case in America. We have information overload on nutritional stats, but we are probably one of the most nutritionally unhealthy nations in the developed world. It will definitely take more than mere information, due to our complex demographic challenges, although I don’t know what the “it” should be. Thanks for your response!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Dawnlizjones, you are quite wellcome and I too appriciate your response. 🙂
Finland is a rather demographically divided nation. We have the northern Saami people, the only European group of people, who are recognized as having an indigenous native status. We have the Swedish Finns, whose native tongue is (surprice, surprice) Swedish and who are distinctly healthier than the majority of Finns. We have a prominent minority of Romani people, or “Gipsies” as they are also called. We have Jews, Muslims, Orthodox Carelians and even Finns are divided by distinct cultural heritages and dialects of our major Tribes. Varying demographics do not affect the issue of how well people absorb information, or even how much they trust their government.
The government has to represent the people, all the people, and by that earn the respect and trust of the people. The government officials have to be professional enough, that they too regardless of the political parties in power are trusted by the people regardless of the demographics.
Trustworthy politicians and officials come from a good educational base, where the society can demand high standards of professionalism from the officials and the voters are well informed about social issues. It is a rocky road, I admit, and there are no ideal societies in this regard anywhere, but it is clearly an issue where all societies can get better. Mine has. Yours has.
I agree, that mere abundance of information on any single issue is not enough, because what people really need are tools to evaluate the information they recieve. Sceptical skills to recognize tin foil hattery in any issue, from nutrition to social ethics. Like for example recognizing, that universal healthcare is as much a “socialized” method of achieving something as the police force, or an army.
If the job of the police force is to protect the citizens by preventing crime and doing it by cathcing criminals and the job of the army is to protect the citizens by preventing a war and to acheive this by posing a plausible threat to the enemies of the nation and if necessary by destroying the enemies of a nation who violate peace, then the job of the universal healthcare is to protect the citizens from sickness by preventing diseases from spreading and by curing those who get sick. All of these goals are the same and in most civilzed countries they are all provided by the government rather than by the private sector, because private companies are out there to seek profit wich makes them both unreliable, costly and liable to abuse the power invested in them. Especially when people are in need of help and woulnerable, like when they need the help of the law enforcement, when their country is invaded, or when they get sick. Right?
As a professional nurse, perhaps you should go out and find out about the different healthcare models in other nations, as a voter you even have some amount of responsibility to do so. Do you not? It is not like the information is not out there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Your response to the health care issue is wonderfully challenging–thank you. Also, I have met a delightful young woman (a Saami) and found her story quite interesting.
LikeLike
3. Pronoun usage
Atta’boy!
LikeLiked by 1 person
And your pronoun is where, you pretty little thing?
LikeLike
Pronouns fronouns, so 20th Century… Adjectives are where it’s at, Larry
LikeLiked by 1 person
She said, as she solved a pressing third world flooding issue. Say, why didn’t you respond to VR Kaine’s do-gooder challenge? I thought you’d give him a run for his money.
LikeLike
Because he agreed with me, in a reluctant sort of begrudging way.
LikeLike
Now Violet, while I appreciate the call out, you could have at least included the paragraph that followed which was,
“It’s a comical list I know, but I can’t possibly outline the breadth of government overreach in the comments section of a blog post, but can only say that the soft tyranny of hidden taxation, excessive regulation and speech codes is well on the march in today’s western world and it does not at all bode well for the future, especially those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.”
Meaning of course that government overreach is a serious matter of which the complexities and history are far too vast to address properly in a blog post comment section. By listing some common every day ways the government forces its decisions on us in the most inane ways, I was hoping people would get the basic gist without boring them to death. Judging by the comments here, most seem to have gotten the concept.
Violet, in all seriousness, have you ever thought about why people get so riled up about too much government? Do you think we do it just to complain and that we are not coming from a place of good intent? Do you not realize that the only power a government has over its citizenry is the use of force? That each and every new rule or mandate is in fact a chipping away at at the freedom of individuals to live and prosper in ways of their own choosing?
i’m not just talking inconvenience here, but soul crushing obedience to a bureaucratic master who has the full force of the military and law enforcement to crush dissent.
Are we nearing a Totalitarian state in the Western world? No, but each day we get a little bit closer thanks to the authoritative Left ,who just can’t help but pile on more and more rules. All for our own good of course.
C.S. Lewis said it best. “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess my response is that I don’t even see it as a comical list. For me, they all make perfect sense in terms of necessary regulation that improve human lives. You still haven’t presented any evidence that suggests otherwise, which leaves me scratching my head.
I have thought about why people get so riled up about government, and I think it might be because they are trapped in their small circle lives being paranoid. I could be completely wrong. From my point of view, governments serve me. If I disagree with them I vote for someone else, or campaign for someone else, or as a last result could get personally involved. From my point of view, I see that governments consult with energy experts, health experts and every other kind of expert in every field, and they publish reports based on their conclusions, and they have public debates and consultations. The process is fairly open and transparent, the evidence base for proposed policy changes around areas like sugar and light bulbs are there for all to see.
Only the paranoid person stuck in their ways, drinking more sugary soda than the human body can cope with and too stubborn to buy energy saving lightbulbs could seriously have a problem. Or show me the solid evidence base that demonstrates sticking to lightbulbs that cost a fortune in power and only last a few months is sensible and doesn’t harm society as a whole? Or the evidence base that shows children are drinking healthy amounts of sugary drinks and it’s not damaging their bodies in huge numbers? Your whole list is laughable, and to attach it to authoritarianism is irresponsible.
Do you use seatbelts in your car? The people who support your argument went crazy when seatbelt laws came in too – some people just can’t get their head round change, even to save their own lives or the lives of their children. Seatbelt laws, drink driving laws, water poisoning laws – all the result of ‘moral busybodies’. I’m surprised you can’t see it. Well, maybe not. 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet, while your faith in the competence of government officials impresses the heck out of me, it depresses me a bit that someone with obvious intelligence is so blind to the harmful effects of an ever increasing and unaccountable administrative state. Little by little perhaps we can bridge this gap. 😉
Also, did I say let’s have no government and no laws? No, I explicitly went out of my way to say that’s an insane proposition but your response for some reason infers this.
One final thought. I often hear that people like myself who are concerned with government authority are afraid of change and that if we’d just open our cavemen eyes to the glories of progressive thought, we’d see the compact florescent lighting and all would be well.
I think the fear here is on the other side. Perhaps you should ask yourself Violet, what is it about self sufficiency that frightens you so much? Is it that you don’t trust your own common sense and abilities to navigate life without a nanny government intruding in to every nook and cranny? Or, is it “those other people” that you feel are to stupid to get on in life without a byzantine list of government mandates to follow?
You are obviously comfortable with big government, as is your right. I just wish you folks would stop mandating it for those of us who would prefer less.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, it’s odd, I simply can’t share the fears others express here. I see large government as being the result of a well organised society. Bear in mind I live in the UK and our administrative state is most probably larger than yours. As I’ve said on many occasions before, I enjoy living in a co-operative society. I’ve been fortunate enough to be able to support myself in life so far, but I’d hate to think I could get cancer and have no health cover, or lose my job and have no support option till I found another. I hate to think of that happening to other people. Self sufficiency is great while it’s available, but I would ask you to flip your question: what is about providing safety nets for people that you object to? What is it about the other people in your country you distrust so much?
LikeLike
Its not odd Violet, plenty of people feel the same way you do and think people like me are a bit off their rocker with this government overreach nonsense. Or maybe they just think I’m off my rocker period, who knows.
And you might be surprised at this but I do see a need for safety nets and don’t wish them to be completely abolished. There are just too many people stuck in government dependency and to pull the rug out entirely would be a human catastrophe. Drastic reform is needed though so the intent can be to get people back to work and off the programs if possible.
That is my biggest concern with too much government, is it ends up displacing a lot of what people should be doing for themselves and creates dependency which just eviscerates the soul. We have a big problem with this here in the U.S.
It’s not that I distrust people but I don’t grant them angel status just because they work for the government. I do distrust unaccountable bureaucracies though because they do what unaccountable bureaucracies always do; grow larger and more unaccountable, corrupt inefficient and harmful. The primary goal eventually becomes about feeding this blob and all the cottage industries that spring up around to support it.
And yes, I think your UK does beat us with the size of your administrative state. For now anyway as we sure are working overtime here to catch up! 😉 Lovely country though.
LikeLike
Did C.S. Lewis mean by his comment, that he would rather live in a world watched over by Satan than by Jesus? Because Jesus is supposed to be moral and omnipotent, and Satan might slack on the job of being evil? Once again his comment was nonsensical. He was not a bad childrens book writer, but in other respects what could be best described as a nincompoop in the shadow of greater minds.
Lewis: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
This is clearly a comment coming from a priviledged position of a person who never felt they needed any help. Never mind, that their position within society was provided by the society, they scorn the modern society in favour of some feodalistic past and horribly unequal extortion of people. It is easy to say, that one would prefer to live under the rulership of a robber baron, than an “omnipotent moral busybody”, when one has not really ever lived under the rulership of a robber baron, nor an omnipotent moral or less than moral busybody.
What do “small” or “big” government even mean? I guess almost everybody can agree, that overt bureaucracy may become a problem. Yet, “small” administrations as in many of the developing countries are infact also very weak in face of corporations both at home and from abroad. That makes, them unable to do their main job. Corruption levels in general are lower in countries like for example GB and the Nordic countries, that all have a high level of administration. Often this is the case because there is the second administrator to watch over the first one.
The job of the government is to protect the rights of the citizens, not their priviledges or indulgencies. The job of the voter is to choose a government that provides for all the citizens not just some select group they themselves are a part of.
Croney capitalism in the US (and elswhere) is a result of overt ideological capitalism, in wich private sector is seen as the best way to do things in all issues. Clearly it is not. Because we can not privatize the government. Or we could and see what happens. The US has come close to that by leading political parties and their candidates being dependant on the money of capitalists who only have the interrests of major corporations in mind. The result is overt croney capitalism, overt military budget, overt secret agencies, wars abroad for obscure reasons, no universal healthcare and people terribly suspicious of their own “democratically” appointed governments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tricia, I’m not unsympathetic to the concerns, conservative and not, about the overreach of governments, although I’m not certain most of the “intrusions” listed here qualify. Sure, we may not want the government to regulate sugar consumption. What about tobacco then, for children at least? Or smoking in public places? Is banning those an overreach, in your opinion, or not?
Or how about, for example, lead in drinking water — a subject much in the news lately? Does the government have any responsibility to see that our drinking water is safe?
You say:
(…) each and every new rule or mandate is in fact a chipping away at at the freedom of individuals to live and prosper in ways of their own choosing
Freedom of individuals to live and prosper in ways of their choosing sounds good and reasonable. But how do conservatives, of the religious kind at least, square this with their advocacy of such measures as ban on abortion and contraception (or its certain forms)? That’s a major intrusion into private lives of individuals, dramatically chipping away at their freedom to live and prosper as they choose.
On what basis do you make your determination which intrusions are acceptable and which are not?
BTW, as someone who grew under Communism, I would not say that there is such a thing as authoritarian Left in the US which crushes Americans’ freedom through governmental overreach. You really do not have a “Left” in power in this country to speak of in any meaningful way. People like Obama and Clinton are centrists, maybe an inch to the left on occasion, if at all, and so are Democrats in general. But however scary this centrism is to conservatives, I don’t believe it can be called authoritarian Left imposing its iron rule on America.
LikeLike
Emma, I so appreciate your perspective as someone having grown up under Communism. I would love to spend a day with you listening to your insights on that! May I ask what country?
First off, just to make clear, an aversion to and concern about government overreach doesn’t mean let’s blow up the government and see how we do. I’m not advocating this and I know of no sane person that does, but for some reason Lefties are always trying to equate the two. Not saying you did, but just want to clear the air.
Where to draw the line of course between regulation and individual freedom is always the ultimate question and something we should be continually asking ourselves. Not only are we not doing this, but we are closing our eyes to the important statutes that lie behind it, as layer upon layer of excessive regulation gets applied, with no one really caring much about outcomes so long as the intent of the law means to do well. Because, well, for the children you know.
Do age restrictions on tobacco usage really prevent minors from gaining access? Or does the government forcefully putting itself between parent and child do more harm than good by taking the responsibility off the parent to properly counsel their child?
Same thing with sugar consumption and a whole host of things that, in my opinion, are better left for individuals to decide. There are trade offs with everything and one could easily argue that it’s immoral to devote money and resources on things like this that could be better applied to more important areas, like how to effectively assist the working poor and chronically homeless.
Do I have all the answers? No, but I strongly feel our priorities on what the government should be taking on are way skewed, leaving people in many ways worse off than if left to their own devices due to dependency and infantilizing issues.
As far as abortion, ask yourself this. if you believed life begins at conception, than wouldn’t you too want to have laws that protect this life? I mean you agree that killing someone outside of the womb is wrong, correct? Why is it offensive then that someone who believes life begins at conception advocates to protect that life? Just because you don’t believe life begins then doesn’t negate their stance. Arguing over this stance is fine but to say their motivation is about control is flawed in my view.
And banning contraception? In my 46 years of living, I can honestly say I’ve never met anyone who wants to ban contraception. The Catholic church I guess has issues with their followers using it, but I’ve never heard anyone call for taking it off the shelves so others can’t. Please do correct me if i’m wrong.
And as far as Obama and Clinton etc..being centrist moderates? Lol! That is a good one, thank you for the chuckle! Actually to be fair, HRC is more of a corporatist. She was pretty far left back in her early days when Bill was president, but money and power has always meant more to her and she’s had to shift a bit to accommodate her wall street cronies.
It’s hard to tell where she stands now as she is saying everything and anything to win over Bernie Sanders supporters while directly contradicting the Hillary of just a year to two ago. Kind of like Tump to be honest.
Personally I think our candidate choices on both the left and right are horrible, but America will survive and I’m sure the whole episode will inspire plenty of good subjects to blog about.
LikeLike
I’m on my phone, so will make it short and sweet.
Poland. Yes, I have stories to tell. 🙂
The same argument that’s used re: abortion (concern and care over people’s lives) can be and is used re: sugar regulation.
How about marriage then? How can conservatives, who object to government’s intrusion into our lives, justify their opposition to gay marriage?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve been to many countries in Europe but not yet Poland. I hope to someday, the history alone there is fascinating!
Short and sweet here too, busy day. I don’t see the similarities at all between someone’s deeply held beliefs about about protecting life in the womb and how much sugar content should be allowed in a bottle of soda. I can’t offer any proper response to such a comparison.
As to gay marriage, not all conservatives are against it, or if they are, think it’s proper for the government to outlaw it. Just ask any Libertarian. I personally think it should be left to the states as I do abortion. If you don’t know about American Federalism this won’t make any sense but it’s an important component to the U.S. government and how issues like this are best handled.
For many, opposition to gay marriage, as I would hope you know, comes from deeply held Biblical beliefs on what constitutes traditional marriage and again has nothing to do with wanting to be mean to gay people. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and most members of the Democratic party held these beliefs up until very recently when it became politically expedient to change sides.
So there are two areas where some, but not all conservatives wish to use the government to regulate behavior. I could literally list hundreds if not thousands of ways the far left in America has been trying to control people. Hmmm, I sense a blog post brewing.
LikeLike
I understand the heartfelt desire to protect and honour human life once actualized as an independent individual with full legal protections. What I don’t understand is why people extend this personal belief beyond themselves and beyond the law and beyond the independence needed to be granted autonomy and beyond the personal choice others may make for very valid medical and psycho-social reasons and assume the right to determine for others what the correct choice must be… regardless of all other health and medical concerns. This urge to automatize actual people into incubators out of some concern for the potential they might produce is completely irrational to me That’s not pro life: that’s simply anti-choice.
In Canada, abortion is a politically taboo subject. By doing nothing about it, the State leaves the subject where I think it most reasonably belongs: between the woman whose body is incubating cells that can potentially become an autonomous individual (like the stem cells you scratch off by the hundreds of thousands from your nose every time you blow it) and her healthcare providers. Why shouldn’t I respect her decision and assume she makes it for her own very good reasons. After all, she’s the autonomous one and I’d like her to remain so if I wish her to respect my autonomy (to, say, eat some white sugar if I so so choose to do so).
LikeLike
I have never yet seen stem cells from a person’s nose turn into an autonomous human being.
LikeLike
See? Already you confuse the actual with the potential.
LikeLike
😀 You wrote: “between the woman whose body is incubating cells that can potentially become an autonomous individual (like the stem cells you scratch off by the hundreds of thousands from your nose every time you blow it)”. I merely said I’ve never yet seen any of these turn into an autonomous human being, so clearly (hate having to explain a punchline) you’re missing the point comparing them with an embryo.
LikeLike
Yet. But the potential is there. And you’re willing to abrogate the rights of the actual in the name of the potential. I’m saying this is irrational because, by attacking the autonomy of the actual woman in the name of potential, you are undermining your own.
LikeLike
No, you are willing to abrogate the rights. Of parents, to make choices about what chemicals and biohazards get injected into their born children.
LikeLike
Re-read your own comment and then apply it to mandated vaccination.
LikeLike
But I’ve seen the way you people argue. You take a snippet from a comment and twist it into meaning A, B, and therefore also C. It’s called polemics and is sort-of the opposite of the scientific method. I am not trained in polemics as you are and I also don’t google my answers on pages like “how to win an argument against a …” (fill in whatever suits, pro-lifer, pro-choicer, Christian, Atheist, climate denialist, climate fearmongerist, whatever). So I feel far too much of my original thinking and my background knowledge is wasted in these pointless arguments against laymen like you who claim to be experts on EVERY topic because you have Dr Google to help you win the argument. You still haven’t answered my original question: Can you explain the exact molecular process 1) on which vaccine production is based and 2) on which the theory of immunity via vaccination inside the body works? If you can’t, you don’t really understand the subject, TildeB.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I used to be firmly pro choice, so I really do get what you’re saying tildeb and I’m not certainly not hear to argue abortion policy with anyone. People believe what they want to believe, although I think imaging technology is causing some (many?) to switch sides. What you call stem cells scratched form the nose, others call life so of course they are going to do what they can to protect it.
LikeLike
Come see Krakow. Magical city. You may fall in love.
Your comment illustrates something Mr. M mentioned on the previous thread: the issue of framing.
You frame conservative attempts to influence policy in the language of concern and care (about life in womb, deeply held biblical beliefs), and liberal attempts to exert influence om policy in the language of control.
Liberals do the same, only in reverse: their see their policies as motivated by concern and care (about health and safety of people), while those of conservatives as attempts at control.
It is apparent that, roughly speaking, conservatives are for increasing economic freedom while controlling personal freedom (abortion, marriage, drug use), while liberals push for greater economic controls and loosening restrictions on personal freedom (as defined by the issues above).
Those differences stem from fundamental differences in values that are not really amenable to change.
LikeLike
I bet Krakow is magical, hopefully one day I will find out for myself. I see what you’re saying and I do agree both sides think they are coming from a point of caring. I don’t agree fully with the rest but it is an interesting point.
LikeLike
And as far as Obama and Clinton etc..being centrist moderates? Lol! That is a good one, thank you for the chuckle!
You’re welcome, Tricia.
But, you know, I’m right. 🙂
American Democrats are what it is considered conservatives in other First World countries.
American mainstream Republicans are the equivalent of far righters in Europe and elsewhere.
American far, far righters — fundamentalist evangelicals, for example — would be an extreme fringe in Europe. I don’t know if there even is an equivalent of that in European countries, but if so, it is certainly nowhere near in a scope anywhere comparable to the US.
America is a conservative country. Any pronouncements from right-wingers that it is turning communist in front of our eyes smack of propaganda-induced paranoia from the Cold War era (and those fears, which had absolutely no basis then, are still strangely alive and well in the US). There is just no truth to that.
Communism is a system with the completely nationalized means of production (industry and business of any sort).
America is obviously not communist, or anywhere near that. I came here to escape Communism and its misery (although Poland was socialist-communist, which means that our situation was not as bad as in the Soviet Union); I would be the first one to protest if I saw its signs in my adopted home country.
America also does not have a very strong and effective left, of the kind that could introduce dramatic changes to its economic system, changes of the kind that would push it toward socialism (much less Communism).
Leftism in America today has to do with culture more than with economy, which is where the real left (socialism and Communism) would be.
I checked to see if my perceptions are supported by facts and it appears to be so (as far as Wiki is grounded in reality on this subject): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Left
Left-wing ideologies came to the United States in the 19th century, but there are currently no major left-wing political parties in the U.S., because while the Democratic Party is almost evenly divided between liberals and moderates
In fact, according to surveys, American population is further to the left than American Democratic party:
elected Democrats and the Democratic Party’s platform are to the right of the American population’s central preferences
This is fascinating, IMO: American population in general is more leftist than the party which supposedly represents it.
Wiki continues:
Despite its apparent weakness as a political movement, leftist activists in the United States have been instrumental in advancing progressive social change on issues such as labor and civil rights, civil liberties, peace, feminism, gay rights, and environmentalism, as well as providing critiques of capitalism
So yeah, American lefties focus on cultural issues and on criticizing capitalism, but they are not turning America into a socialist country, much less a communist one.
Sometimes when I go to right-wing sites and read the panicked and aggrieved lamentations on the communist takeover of the US, which is allegedly almost complete now, I laugh my head off (or scratch it, depending). These feverish imaginings are just preposterous.
Last thing; I’m not sure the layers upon layers of regulation are a leftist thing, Tricia. That sounds more like bureaucracy rather than leftism, and is something you will find in all more or less advanced human societies. The bureaucracy (and wastefulness) in the American health care system, prior to Obamacare, for example, was/is mind-boggling (and one reason, though not the main one, for its inefficiency and general lousiness). It was one of the most surprising things that I saw when I came here 30 years ago. Unfortunately, that’s one aspect that ACA has not improved (and it likely cannot be improved as long as the system involves multiple insurance companies with their own capricious rules).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Emma, I’m sorry, did someone say something about Communism coming to the U.S.? I’d be the first to stand next to you and laugh in their face if so. It would probably be quite fun!
Too much here to comment on and it’s late although I do appreciate the lengthy response. Suffice it to say we have very different takes on conservatism vs liberalism and their respective roles in the U.S.. And on the accuracy of Wikipedia it appears….
LikeLike
Sugar? This is better.
I suppose a man (or woman) would get quite ill if he ate a pound of honey at one sitting. Some would cite the evils of honetry as the bane of the sweet tooth,or go a step further and blame the bee………..
but as it is, all things can be abused, and all things are good in moderation. Me? Just a simple person who thanks God for His providence as seen in the honey, the comb, and the bee.
(Then there is the honey in the carcass of the lion of Samson, but that’s a whole other story)
LikeLike
Thanks CS, interesting thoughts. I agree, all things in moderation usually works.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even for evil sugar?
All thinks? Arsenic included?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Even in moderation, arsenic would probably soon poison a lion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sugar might not… (driving point home with a sledgehammer) 😀
LikeLike
A diet of sugar-saturated gemsbok, zebra and gazelle might do a lot of damage, and in the case of the lion on this thread, I suspect that too many sugary comments from atheists could well have serious adverse effects on his mental health.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And as a gesture of good will, with deference to the host, I offer a jar of honey, but hope you do not choke on such goodness.
LikeLike
Am I expected to swallow the jar?
LikeLike
LOL!
LikeLike