Research: Red Meat Linked to Cancer

[Autolykos]

Quote by: fushigi Oh, I get it. Each person is the master of his own emotional well-being, and no-one else is culpable for affecting any other person. So, if I torture you (for example), it's YOUR fault if your feelings get hurt? :rolleyes:

Is physical pain the same thing as a mental emotion? :rolleyes:

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Rob, you inferred that a ban was being put forth(misrepresenting what was being discussed), or why else even come in with being against point "B" when point "B" had never even been hinted at? Obfuscation for some reason, perhaps? or derailment?

Give me a break.

I did not accuse the article, nor anyone else posting in this thread, of putting forth a ban. Thus, I did not misrepresent what was discussed. I am not going to repeat what I already said. It is clear as crystal to me, and I honestly cannot see how you could distort my words to such an extent. Furthermore, there is no ulterior motive here on my part -- no obfuscation, no derailment, no nothing.

You can believe what you want.

- Rob

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Autolykos Give me a break.

You will get "no quarter from me," Rob. <wink>

I did not accuse the article, nor anyone else posting in this thread, of putting forth a ban. Thus, I did not misrepresent what was discussed.

Rob, you stated that:

... it is quite another to use this as support for, e.g., banning mammal flesh. The latter stands as a non sequitur.

Now, if no one is putting forth the suggestion of a ban, then what reason is there to state that which is not being suggested is a non-sequitur? Who here is suggesting a non-sequitur argument?

Your interjection follows the introduction of a straw man:

John: Studies show that speeding causes deaths.
Bob: I am against banning cars.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Autolykos Is physical pain the same thing as a mental emotion? :rolleyes:

I can't believe I'm even being bothered to answer this, but here we go...

Approximately 18.8 million American adults (Narrow, 1998), or about 9.5% of the U.S. population age 18 and older (Regier et al, 1993), experience a depressive disorder. <snip> Out of 303 depressed women culled from a large random sample, 63% had experienced abuse at some point in their life.

So women are more than 50% likely to suffer from depression if they've been abused at some point in their life.

Could there be a connection? Maybe even causality? Could there??

Saying another person can't cause your emotional/mental duress is just plain fallacious. Would you really maintain that all those women would have suffered from depression even if they'd never been abused?

fushigi

[Autolykos]

Quote by: fushigi I can't believe I'm even being bothered to answer this,

Of course, you don't have to answer it, if you don't want to.

but here we go...So women are more than 50% likely to suffer from depression if they've been abused at some point in their life. Could there be a connection? Maybe even causality? Could there??

Have I offended you somehow? Otherwise, I don't understand your tone. But it has not been my intention to offend you or anyone else.

With that said, we seem to have switched tracks somewhere. My point concerned one person observing another and deriving an emotional state from that observation. Somehow, we've twisted that around to someone deriving an emotional state from his own physical experience(s). These two situations certainly are not the same.

First off, we have a couple of imprecise terms at hand, namely "depression" and "abuse". I think some clarification of these terms is in order.

Second, our subdiscussion has been off-topic for some time now. Perhaps we should move this to a new thread in, say, Miscellaneous?

Saying another person can't cause your emotional/mental duress is just plain fallacious. Would you really maintain that all those women would have suffered from depression even if they'd never been abused?

Er... you seem to be posing a false dichotomy here. The question is not whether minds operate in a vacuum, somehow independent of the sensory information coming in. We know that to be false, all other things being equal. Furthermore, emotions are partially instinctual in nature. There are certain "preprogrammed" emotional responses in the more primitive parts of the brain. However, I think that one characteristic of human nature is the potential to override any instinct. It then stands to reason that people have the potential to control their emotional responses.

- Rob

[fushigi]

Quote by: Autolykos Have I offended you somehow? Otherwise, I don't understand your tone. But it has not been my intention to offend you or anyone else.

No, no. But I think it's a bit callous to argue that - so long as you don't mind getting the disease - there's no need to defend yourself from cancer by reducing your consumption of red meat.

It's not responsible to conclude that your suffering and death shouldn't affect others, and that you therefore have no obligation to defend your health. Families - and society - suffer when their members fall terminally ill, and not just because they're thin-skinned. One must consider the health care costs, one's burden on his family's financial well-being, the secondary effects of that (increased poverty, which increases the strain on the social welfare system), the emotional harm caused to children of those who suffer/die prematurely, and a number of other things.

Like it or not, Libertarians are part of our society too, and have all the obligations therein. Saying how things should be and how they are - those are two different things.

It's everyone's obligation to society and their family to live as healthfully as possible. If you're not willing to accept these obligations, you aren't being a responsible citizen/father.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fushigi said: It's everyone's obligation to society and their family to live as healthfully as possible.

What kind of BS obligation is that?!?!?!?

Where is that defined?

[fushigi]

Of course by obligation I mean MORAL obligation, not Constitutional or whatever. To the degree that your poor health may infringe on the well-being of others, this statement is absolutely true.

The degree to which you are obligated is directly related with the degree to which you are connected to society/your family.

It's more of a Japanese/Chinese concept, but I am a faithful believer in this.

[StrongHeartsWin]

I think it is not so unique to Asian thought. I would bet a husband, wife, daughter, son, friend, fiance, boy friend, girl friend, etc... has often pleaded with a loved one to keep themselves healthy, imploring them to not 'leave' them, confessing thoughts of how devastating they would be if they were to lose them.

People are affected by that and do feel an obligation to make it to their son`s first little league baseball game or their daughter`s wedding, or the birth of their grandaughter.

I think these conversations play out daily in hospitals or death beds throughout the U.S. as they do in any part of the world. It is human nature to be emotionally hurt when a loved one leaves, and that can be compounded when their death was wholly preventable through a less selfish or less risky lifestyle.

Hard for me to say if Asians have a stronger sense of obligation than Westerners. Perhaps it may be just more overtly recognized due to Confucian values, but it surely is not monopolized by them and most of us feel obligated to make it home to our families safely every night -- particularly when as Fushigi pointed out, many rely on us for a variety of reasons.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: fushigi No, no. But I think it's a bit callous to argue that - so long as you don't mind getting the disease - there's no need to defend yourself from cancer by reducing your consumption of red meat.

If you think me callous for arguing that, so be it. But that's your problem, not mine.

Let me say, however, that calling an argument "callous" does not prove it to be false.

It's not responsible to conclude that your suffering and death shouldn't affect others, and that you therefore have no obligation to defend your health.

"Shouldn't"? Where did I say "shouldn't"? You seem to have completely mischaracterized my argument. I am not arguing about whether one's suffering and death should or should not affect others. Nor am I arguing whether it does affect others.

I suppose my argument is really about obligation. Just because you think I'm obligated to do something, for example, doesn't mean that I necessarily feel obligated myself.

Another part of my argument, as I've pointed out, is about people ultimately being in control of their own emotions. No one else is you, and no one else can tell you what to think or otherwise make you think certain things. One person cannot control another's thoughts. Since emotions are a form of thought, one person cannot control another's emotions.

If you want to argue the logical and/or factual validity of my arguments, that's fine. Calling them "callous", however, does not serve that purpose.

Families - and society - suffer when their members fall terminally ill, and not just because they're thin-skinned. One must consider the health care costs, one's burden on his family's financial well-being, the secondary effects of that (increased poverty, which increases the strain on the social welfare system), the emotional harm caused to children of those who suffer/die prematurely, and a number of other things.

Equivocation. You are using multiple meanings for the word "suffer". Please be consistent.

And no, one does not have to consider anything, if he so chooses. (This is yet another principled argument, in case you want to construe it as "one shouldn't consider anything".)

Like it or not, Libertarians are part of our society too, and have all the obligations therein. Saying how things should be and how they are - those are two different things.

Where have I said how things should be? Again, you're mischaracterizing my statements.

I don't see why Libertarians or any other political group need be mentioned here. What are you getting at?

Basically you seem to be saying that "like it or not, people who don't feel obligated to our society [sic!] are still obligated". Tell me, how do you expect those who don't feel obligated themselves to carry out the obligations that others such as yourself choose to "impose" upon them? (I think you know where I am going with this.)

It's everyone's obligation to society and their family to live as healthfully as possible. If you're not willing to accept these obligations, you aren't being a responsible citizen/father.

*Sigh*

That is your opinion, of course.

I happen to disagree with that opinion. What are you going to do about it?

- Rob

[fushigi]

Quote by: Rob One person cannot control another's thoughts. Since emotions are a form of thought, one person cannot control another's emotions.

This statement concerns me, Rob.

First, thoughts can be controlled. How else would you explain that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God, and the overwhelming majority of Chinese don't? Coincidence?

Here's a simpler example. When I write this word:

TANGERINE

does it not make you think of the word "tangerine"? There, I just controlled your thoughts.

Second, emotions are not a form of thought. Thoughts CAN be controlled to a certain extent (I suppose if you tried really hard, you could make yourself stop thinking about the TANGERINE right now); emotions are more volatile. Do the families of the VT massacre CHOOSE to be depressed? No? Then why are they? Is it because they're not TRYING hard enough to not be depressed?

Your actions influence me, and mine yours. That's the nature of a society [no sic]: a group of individuals interacting in a common system.

Anyone who wants to suggest otherwise - that they're not obligated to their society - is either irresponsible or not thinking clearly. Yet I've noticed many Libertarians presenting this argument - that one person in a society has no obligation to any other person - again and again as if it's possible. That's why I bring up Libertarianism.

The ink on the social contract is dry. It can't be erased no matter how hard you try.

[Autolykos]

Fushigi,

It seems that you and I have different definitions for words such as "control", "influence", and even "thought". Without coming to a mutual understanding of each other's point of view, I'm afraid that our debate will reach a dead end.

I do not wish to derail this thread any longer. Why don't we "take this outside", as it were -- perhaps a special debate in Miscellaneous?

- Rob

[fushigi]

As you wish: debate.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Gets popcorn and drink.