quote:

Slavery is natural. People differ, and we must expect that those who are superior in a certain way — for example, in intelligence, morality, knowledge, technological prowess, or capacity for fighting — will make themselves the masters of those who are inferior in this regard. Abraham Lincoln expressed this idea in one of his famous 1858 debates with Senator Stephen Douglas:

There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

OwlFancier posted:

https://mises.org/library/ten-reasons-not-abolish-slavery


I'm not saying black people are literally subhuman and it is our moral imperative to enslave them, but what do you think of this quote eh?

Who What Now posted:

But isn't that article not saying those arguments are good, but rather saying that those arguments are exactly the same, both intellectually and morally, as the arguments for abolishing the State?

ToxicSlurpee posted:

I think it started from hostility toward processed foods from how much fire the corn-filled garbage that is everywhere has been coming under. The problem though isn't food processing itself but how it's being processed; the food industry often maximizes cheap calories (i.e., corn) to make food as cheaply as possible that just happens to suck when it comes to nutrition. Then a study comes out and says "hey all this hyper-processed corn isn't good for you, eat less of it."

fishmech posted:

No, it isn't "how" it's being processed, it's simply that we eat way too much. Today's food doesn't suck when it comes to nutrition, it's better than food's ever been for the majority of people for the majority of history. We just, again, eat way too much.

Who What Now posted:

But isn't that article not saying those arguments are good, but rather saying that those arguments are exactly the same, both intellectually and morally, as the arguments for abolishing the State?

fishmech posted:

No, it isn't "how" it's being processed, it's simply that we eat way too much. Today's food doesn't suck when it comes to nutrition, it's better than food's ever been for the majority of people for the majority of history. We just, again, eat way too much.

QuarkJets posted:

"It's simply that we eat too much" is a gross oversimplification, though. What you eat can play a big role in how you eat. If everyone was just eating home-cooked meat and vegetables you'd have a point, but there's a lot of science studying how different foods effect hunger in ways that are different from the amount of energy that they provide. 100 calories of Wonder Bread doesn't make you feel as full as 100 calories of sourdough, basically.

There's also some interesting studies suggesting that gut flora can have a significant role to play with regard to obesity, and what we eat has a significant impact on our gut flora. So as usual, "you're just eating too much" is not the right thing to tell an obese person

fishmech posted:

Your Dunkle Sans posted:

Any idea when Jrode is coming back? I'm starting to miss the miserable (melon) fucker just a little.

Nevvy Z posted:

Don't talk to fishmech

QuarkJets posted:

Leave it to fishmech to discount scientific research published in Nature as "just a fad diet"

Nevvy Z posted:

Don't talk to fishmech about food. He'll just twist and writhe for months to be technically correct because he is dealing with the 'perfect frictionless sphere' of social personhood while the rest of us look at things in real social context. This road has been gone down.

fishmech posted:

The scientific research doesn't disagree that the primary problem in every single country that has gotten fat in recent decades in the vast increase in amount of food eaten. You can try to pussyfoot around it, you'll just be wrong.

fishmech posted:

Yeah you refused to accept that the problem is eating too much food because it hurt your feelings.

fishmech posted:

The scientific research doesn't disagree that the primary problem in every single country that has gotten fat in recent decades in the vast increase in amount of food eaten. You can try to pussyfoot around it, you'll just be wrong.

QuarkJets posted:

"It's simply that we eat too much" is a gross oversimplification, though. What you eat can play a big role in how you eat.

QuarkJets posted:

Case in point: a thin woman given a transplant of gut microbes from her obese daughter quickly became obese. You can replicate the same effect in mice, so it's repeatable. Now it's possible that this woman simply decided to eat a lot more and gain 35 pounds on her own, independent of the transplant, but in the mice studies the diet is well-controlled so your impending accusation of "fat bitch just decided to become a fatty at random" is very likely incorrect. Seemingly our gut microbes determine both our metabolism and our hunger, and our gut microbiome is determined largely by what we we eat.

QuarkJets posted:

I never disagreed that the primary problem is overeating you buffoon:


When all countries everywhere start to become obese, it's worth asking why. Did people just magically start eating more?

Nolanar posted:

If this thread is going to be full of gross oversimplifications from a gross simpleton, we might as well pick a more entertaining source.



Fluoridation Revisited
By Murray N. Rothbard
Originally published January 1993

Yes, I confess: I’m a veteran anti-fluoridationist, thereby – not for the first time – risking placing myself in the camp of “right-wing kooks and fanatics.” It has always been a bit of mystery to me why left-environmentalists, who shriek in horror at a bit of Alar on apples, who cry “cancer” even more absurdly than the boy cried “Wolf,” who hate every chemical additive known to man, still cast their benign approval upon fluoride, a highly toxic and probably carcinogenic substance. And not only let fluoride emissions off the hook, but endorse uncritically the massive and continuing dumping of fluoride into the nation’s water supply.

First: the generalized case for and against fluoridation of water. The case for is almost incredibly thin, boiling down to the alleged fact of substantial reductions in dental cavities in kids aged 5 to 9. Period. There are no claimed benefits for anyone older than nine! For this the entire adult population of a fluoridated area must be subjected to mass medication!

The case against, even apart from the specific evils of fluoride, is powerful and overwhelming.

fishmech posted:

There's nothing magical about food prices dropping, wages increasing, and social safety nets that help pay for food for the poor who were previously on the brink of starvation for decades being built. This is the problem with you people, you decide to overlook that because you want so desperately to believe there is The Bad Food responsible. There is a huge difference in common foods eaten across all of today's fat countries, it's clear that it isn't the specific food involved, merely the quantity.

You're focused on things that only affect a few people, when we're talking about things that affect close to a billion people's weight. Unless you're proposing there was some hidden plague of gut bacteria changing that happened to coincide with when wages went up, food prices went down, and social safety nets for food help were improved?

Who What Now posted:

Ok, but wages have been stagnating and food prices have been rising and welfare has become increasingly difficult to obtain, but we aren't seeing a drop in obesity rates. If you were actually right there should be a change to reflect these facts. It's... It's almost like there are other factors involved!

Who What Now posted:

Hey, Fishmech, please quote me where I specifically said that over-eating wasn't a factor. If you're going to accuse me of doing that, obviously you must have seen me use those exact words, right? Don't worry, sport, I'll wait.

fishmech posted:

For someone who doesn't believe it isn't a factor, you sure seem desperate to believe there's some other major cause so you don't have to admit it's the only true factor present in all countries affected by a flab-wave.

fishmech posted:

For someone who doesn't believe it isn't a factor, you sure seem desperate to believe there's some other major cause so you don't have to admit it's the only true factor present in all countries affected by a flab-wave.

SedanChair posted:

As much as fishmech acts like a corn lobbyist without the charm or tact, he's got a point. Have you ever looked at recipes from the '50s? Jesus Christ. But what has changed is portions and intake. Look at what is considered a single serving cookie or muffin, or how you get a literal quart of soda with your (now enormous) burger and fries. Caloric intake is the one variable that seems to apply in almost every case.

SedanChair posted:

As much as fishmech acts like a corn lobbyist without the charm or tact, he's got a point. Have you ever looked at recipes from the '50s? Jesus Christ. But what has changed is portions and intake. Look at what is considered a single serving cookie or muffin, or how you get a literal quart of soda with your (now enormous) burger and fries. Caloric intake is the one variable that seems to apply in almost every case.

Cingulate posted:

Can you post one of these mice studies?

Cingulate posted:

The balance between food calories eaten and calories expended due to moving is the heavily dominating factor. This does not have to be problematized, discussed, or ascribed as a view that particularly Fishmech holds. Everybody knows it.

QuarkJets posted:

I'm phoneposting for the rest of the day, so no. But they were pretty well-advertised in popsci magazines so I'm sure you can google them down

SedanChair posted:

I guess I had assumed that he admits the pressures of marketing on the consumer, but why would I assume that? I must have just fallen off the turnip truck.

fishmech posted:

Food prices remain very low, among the lowest they've ever been in history. Wages remain more than high enough to buy a ton of food. Food stamp service is actually very widespread, even though other forms of welfare are criminally underfunded.

We're well past the point where food costs little enough for there to be a continued rise in obesity. Food would have to get significantly more expensive before the trend will reverse "on its own" through sheer lack of ability to afford food. Plus there's all the other places in the world where wages have continued to rise and welfare hasn't been cut who are also getting fat, it's not some problem that magically only exists in the US and Canada.

But hey keep believing this is all the fault of Evil Food (that no science can actually pin down in a consistent way)! If you're going to ignore evidence, why not also invest in these official Ron Paul gold certificates while you're at it?

fishmech posted:

For someone who doesn't believe it isn't a factor, you sure seem desperate to believe there's some other major cause so you don't have to admit it's the only true factor present in all countries affected by a flab-wave.

Cingulate posted:

I've so far not found anything I liked, and popsci is worse than religion.