|
do you listen to your conscience? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
It's not about being an "internet judge". Do you share these views and thoughts with people in real life? They're extremely far-fetched, and you deem everyone else to be delusional (resorting quickly to argumenta ad hominem) though that's exactly how we often feel about you. Here, let me illustrate it for you.
Most people would feel comfortable saying that sugar makes you fat because of its caloric content, but having a sweet tooth is anything but uncommon, reason why the consumption of sugar is still high. It's a very simple state of affairs.
We wouldn't be at all surprised if you told us giant food corporations added addictive substances in refined sugar so people craved it more and more and spent most of their mental capacity on how to get more sugar - so they can slake their thirst for sweet drinks, or whatever - than on how to fight the corrupt government that has been keeping us as their sheep and orchestrating the creation of a New World Order thanks to the hypnotic powers of sugar craving
You see how something simple and natural, such as a basic human attraction to sugar, suddenly became a subplot about governmental mind control? It's both unnecessary and unlikely to explain the event... yet you claim everyone else is deluded. |
I said wow. I'm not going to change your mind about things obviously, so why ask me these questions? Not to mention you've changed a few parameters. And I think its ridiculous to believe that peoples interest in sugar grew relative to a natural evolution. Or the stark rise in obesity happened relative to a natural evolution, without synthetic gusts of wind to push things into a direction. |
|
|
| ModernNosferatu |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
I said wow. I'm not going to change your mind about things obviously, so why ask me these questions? Not to mention you've changed a few parameters. And I think its ridiculous to believe that peoples interest in sugar grew relative to a natural evolution. Or the stark rise in obesity happened relative to a natural evolution, without synthetic gusts of wind to push things into a direction. |
I respect everyone in TA but I didn't understand a word of that. |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
I'm not going to argue with someone who has no cool friends, who misrepresents survival as a goal of Buddhism being that, within a central belief of Buddhism, survival is a foregone conclusion by virtue of reincarnation, and who has consistently, throughout this thread compared Buddhist Monks to rats. It's offensive, and I will not be a party to it! |
Delusions cont'd?
Survival and Bhuddist belief in Reincarnation have nothing to do with eachother in this context. "Survival is a foregone conclusion by virtue of reincarnation", is ridiculous. Just move on. |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ModernNosferatu
I respect everyone in TA but I didn't understand a word of that. |
I dont understand some poetry...they put in there, that is hard to understand, i'm guessing for the reader to develop and personalize their own meanings. But what I said in that quote is rather simple.
Maybe natural evolution needs a defintion. One example, natural evolution is like a seed or pollen, falling from where it may fall, finding a place in the ground/plant and naturally growing without being touched or pushed. Obesity, clearly has not evolved naturally, relative to what you would imagine in a natural evolution. |
|
|
| ModernNosferatu |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
I dont understand some poetry...they put in there, that is hard to understand, i'm guessing for the reader to develop and personalize their own meanings. But what I said in that quote is rather simple.
Maybe natural evolution needs a defintion. One example, natural evolution is like a seed or pollen, falling from where it may fall, finding a place in the ground/plant and naturally growing without being touched or pushed. Obesity, clearly has not evolved naturally, relative to what you would imagine in a natural evolution. |
That made more sense. |
|
|
| Kismet7 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ModernNosferatu
That made more sense. |
:) |
|
|
| idoru |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Do you share these views and thoughts with people in real life? |
Oh man, I would love to see a direct answer to this. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
Delusions cont'd?
Survival and Bhuddist belief in Reincarnation have nothing to do with eachother in this context. |
You mean the patently absurd, erratically nebulous, artificial context you've whimsically created like some imaginary friend to comfort the lonely feelings of a four-year-old thwarted from his attempt to warm under the glow of the television by a malicious second-rate care-taker more interested in General Hospital than appropriate child-development? |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
I said wow. I'm not going to change your mind about things obviously, so why ask me these questions? |
I'm trying to show you that the criticism you get is not random, or something unfair written by trolls trying to provoke you. Rather, it's because of the way you organise your ideas.
| quote: | Originally posted by Kismet7
Not to mention you've changed a few parameters. |
That's because I'm talking about something else entirely. I just created a random example to help you understand how we see you. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
We wouldn't be at all surprised if you told us giant food corporations added addictive substances in refined sugar so people craved it more and more and spent most of their mental capacity on how to get more sugar |
Well, actually it is a natural attraction to sugar, so natural that plants have themselves evolved (and been cultivated) to appeal more to human attraction to sugar. The natural reason is that sugars are one of the most efficient energy sources, and because during much of human evolution, where humans were essentially weird, runty, marginalized scavengers, the sugars were difficult to come by, the reward system evolved to be more acute.
With industrial advancements in the refining of sugar and the mass production of sugar substances from raw materials such as corn (where previously sugar was much more specialized, found in expensive imports like sugar cane), came an abundance of cheap food with high sugar content, which innately appealed strongly to people as a result of human biology as i described above. More food that is more immediately satisfying, produced more cheaply by increasingly large corporations was thought to be progress. There is no conspiracy - it is a racket that absolutely everyone was caught up in. And now we have epidemics of obesity and diabetes among adults and children. (not to mention dependence on petroleum to fuel this entire food system) |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
There is no conspiracy |
And that's why I gave that example :p |
|
|
| chlola |
| Yes, except when I used to do hard drugs. |
|
|
|
|
