Food and morality

Martha,

You've got more tolerance than I have! I think as a society we have
to practice "tough love" instead of coddling people. If you want to
drink and you harm society with a DUI - goodbye license. Want to
smoke - ok, then - pay up in health insurance and don't make us pay
for you. Food is a harder issue since some people actually believe
fried chicken is good food - it's chicken, after all.

"MH" wrote in message ...
"Brad Sheppard" wrote in message
om...
Ron,

I have low tolerance for smokers and for people eating unhealthy food.
I have an urge to scold people eating Big Macs and fried chicken, or
downing sugary sodas. Smokers and folks eating unhealthy foods are
part of the reason health insurance costs are going thro the roof.
Generally, tho, it's a myth that obese people eat more calories. The
biggest eaters of all are the athletes in endurance sports - runners,
basketball players, etc. Generally people gain weight gradually -
month after month consuming a little more calories than they burn up.
You don't suddenly wake up and find you weight 300 lbs.

I don't want to scold anybody with those bad habits. After all, I have bad
habits of my own. We have no way of knowing what others are going through.
Many smokers are clean & sober and if smoking keeps them off drugs or
alcohol, more power to 'em. Lots of obese folks are abuse survivors. They
use their fat to shield them from further hurt.

If we work on ourselves instead of worrying about everybody else, we can be
good examples for others to follow.

Martha

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:12:59 -0400, M_un Over Seattle
wrote:

I would disagree. Gluttony, as laid out in the old Testament, is about
eating more than your fair share. It is tied hand-in-hand with waste.

And of course you believe that "2 pounds" is a "fair share".

So for you it is at least partially a moral/religious issue, not just
a health issue. This might partially explain some of the animosity
between you, Dr. Chung, and the "peanut gallery". They're concerned
primarily with weight loss and diabetes control. To you, it's
partially a philosophical issue of how much food you believe God wants
us to eat on any given day. Anybody for alt.religion.2pd?

As far as the "waste" issue is concerned, now of days, "waste" is not
what we are eating but what we are throwing away. You could feed a
third world country on what McDonalds puts in their dumpsters. Of
course you could argue that we are producing too much. What does it
take, about 8 pounds of grain to grow 1 pound of cow?

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:41:20 -0400, M_un Over Seattle
wrote:

How about in the Communist Manifesto?

Doesn't address gluttony.

You could argue that it does. From each according to his abilities, to
each according to his needs. Does anybody "need" to eat 6 plates of
food at the "Old Lenin's Buffet"?

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

In article , Ron Ritzman
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:41:20 -0400, M_un Over Seattle
wrote:

How about in the Communist Manifesto?

Doesn't address gluttony.

You could argue that it does. From each according to his abilities, to
each according to his needs. Does anybody "need" to eat 6 plates of
food at the "Old Lenin's Buffet"?

That was my point Brad.

--
Diva
*****
The Best Man for the Job May Be A Woman

On 21 Oct 2003 01:05:13 GMT, (beeswing) wrote:

As far as the "waste" issue is concerned, now of days, "waste" is not
what we are eating but what we are throwing away.

I don't agree. If I have more food on my plate than I can comfortably eat, it
makes no difference to the starving people of Fill in the Blank whether I
force it down my throat or I throw it into the garbage can.

True, but in reality, most of the waste goes in our garbage cans, not
in our stomaches. And at least in theory, if it goes in our stomaches,
it eventually can be fetched from our fat cells and burned.

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

On 21 Oct 2003 01:38:26 GMT, (beeswing) wrote:

True, but in reality, most of the waste goes in our garbage cans, not
in our stomaches. And at least in theory, if it goes in our stomaches,
it eventually can be fetched from our fat cells and burned.

Ever heard of the "clean plate club"?

I understand the original reason children were encouraged to clean
their plates. At one time nutritional deficiencies were more of a
problem then obesity. Society had to use every trick in the book to
get kids to eat their spinach whether it be guilt over starving
children or Popeye.

--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address

I've struggled with this issue personally (issues surrounding my
faith). While I sincerely believe that God [or insert higher power
of choice or not, here] put food on this earth for enjoyment, (as
well as, obviously, nourishment), I believe overeating to be
abuse of that gift. (Disclaimer: for those who missed the "I"
statements, this is my personal opinion and may not necessarily
reflect the opinions of others here, my employer, my cat, my
favorite grocery store).

Now there are some loopholes in this. There may be people
who have an extremely sluggish metabolism, in which case they
technically would be "overeating" (ingesting more calories than
their metabolic rate), but I wouldn't call it a moral issue then.

Crafting Mom
Do it your way, but do it forever.

"Brad Sheppard" wrote in message
om...
Martha,

You've got more tolerance than I have! I think as a society we have
to practice "tough love" instead of coddling people. If you want to
drink and you harm society with a DUI - goodbye license. Want to
smoke - ok, then - pay up in health insurance and don't make us pay
for you. Food is a harder issue since some people actually believe
fried chicken is good food - it's chicken, after all.

It's not that I have more tolerance, I'm too busy trying to take care of
myself! : )

Martha
Practice makes improvement

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:10:39 -0400, Ron Ritzman
wrote:
I would almost tend to agree, particularly when it comes to smokers,
but there is a slippery slope issue here.
If we were to say that it's immoral to "do dangerous things" less
society be forced to "foot the medical bill" and even in some future
semi-socialist society, find some way of legislating it.

Changing the word "if" to "less" changes the intent. In other words,
as long as care for the indigent is part of the benefits of society
(and, yes, that is the case in the United States, and even more so in
other parts of the West), members of such societies do incur a moral
debt when they knowingly eschew taking reasonable measures to mitigate
such costs. I'm not saying that they should be shot; I'm saying the
incur a moral debt.

It could get
to the point where citizens are mandated to live "approved safe
lifestyles".

No, "it" couldn't get to that point, since we're talking about
incurring a moral debt, and nothing more.


--
¤bicker¤
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than
to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
- Carl Sagan

People are, of course, welcome to place whatever irrelevant
limitations on their ability to enjoy something that they wish.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:21:19 -0400, Ron Ritzman
wrote:

How about in the Communist Manifesto?

Doesn't address gluttony.

You could argue that it does. From each according to his abilities, to
each according to his needs. Does anybody "need" to eat 6 plates of
food at the "Old Lenin's Buffet"?

You could argue that it addresses the use of formal dress too but the
CM was written for the abolition of private property, the liberation
of the productive forces from the capitalist production relations, the
inauguration of true majority rule and the end of class struggle.

It doesn't address gluttony directly as does the OT and NT.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031011.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.