Being obese is now a disease

[rorydaboss]

4,500+ calories a day...I have a fast metabolism....I mean a disease.

*"4500+ calories a day"

lol, yeah, you don't eat 4500 calories a day.

 

[miaou]

What was i referring to pertaining to character in this context?

Is it a false understanding of what character is? or is character in this context a concept without solid defining parameters? Is it all things to all people? no it isn't and i was alluding to a simple-minded version of character applied in these debates. Where determinism isn't acknowledged or understood as something that contributes to "character" and disparities between people in this respect. As if there's complete equality in terms of being able to acquire it. I'm referring to those who are inclined to think that we can transcend determinism by making decisions.

Those who threw around will-power and character in a simplistic and smug fashion wouldn't do so if they acknowledged what you just did.

Free will is equally incoherent and loose a concept.

I can't make much sense out of your post.

Character and personality are well-defined concepts (character, personality).

If you believe in a supernatural interpretation of the world where you have a "soul" that can "transcend" your physiology (which is refuted by all scientific understanding of neuroscience and physiology in general, btw), then the argument "it's not me or my lack of will-power, it's my neurochemistry" is demonstrably inconsistent with your beliefs (because you believe the "inner/real you" can transcend your neurochemistry).

If you don't believe in a supernatural interpretation of the world, then you have to accept that your neurochemistry is part of the actual "you", so the argument "it's not me or my lack of will-power, it's my neurochemistry" is obviously false.

Basically, I do not understand what point you wanted to make in that post.

 

[JaKob]

I can't make much sense out of your post.

Character and personality are well-defined concepts (character, personality).

If you believe in a supernatural interpretation of the world where you have a "soul" that can "transcend" your physiology (which is refuted by all scientific understanding of neuroscience and physiology in general, btw), then the argument "it's not me or my lack of will-power, it's my neurochemistry" is demonstrably inconsistent with your beliefs (because you believe the "inner/real you" can transcend your neurochemistry).

If you don't believe in a supernatural interpretation of the world, then you have to accept that your neurochemistry is part of the actual "you", so the argument "it's not me or my lack of will-power, it's my neurochemistry" is obviously false.

Basically, I do not understand what point you wanted to make in that post.

The formal concepts of "character" are irrelevant. Even in that context there isn't one solid universal measure or standard. Instead various takes on it as exemplified in that wiki article. The reality is, rightly or wrongly, people attribute different meanings to the word "character" in casual conversation. I'm referring to and criticizing a very simplistic and common version - I have no idea why you are taking it upon yourself to educate me about what character is? as if I'm describing my own point of view? I'm referring to those who don't actually consider that what they call "character" is constituted by elements, ingredients, circumstances etc that aren't equally distributed. Any talk about say variations in neurochemistry is dismissed by stating that we can use willpower and make decisions so all that stuff is irrelevant. A massive non-sequitur.

I DON'T believe in that transcendence. Again i wasn't referring to myself at all.

I'm not saying that your neurochemistry isn't "you". It sure fucking is. It's a part of you. What i was referring to was the responsibility or role of biological determinism, which we had no hand in, in dictating that element of "you" and the failing of many to recognize this in these debates.

 

[miaou]

I'm not saying that your neurochemistry isn't "you". It sure fucking is. It's a part of you. What i was referring to was the responsibility or role of biological determinism, which we had no hand in, in dictating that element of "you" and the failing of many to recognize this in these debates.

I don't disagree with anything in this statement.

Maybe I misinterpreted your original post. In the context of the discussion previously had in this thread, by your post I thought you meant "people may have neurochemistry that is simply unfavorable and therefore it's not their personality that is responsible for their behavior".

If you were just trying to describe how many people are quick to point the finger and ascribe "moral blame" to the behaviors of others, then I can agree with you on this point.

 

[Roop Holstry]

*"4500+ calories a day"

lol, yeah, you don't eat 4500 calories a day.

Well I drink a lot of those calories. So no I don't eat all of the calories.

Wtf do you know anyways?

 

[rorydaboss]

Well I drink a lot of those calories. So no I don't eat all of the calories.

Wtf do you know anyways?

I know that typically people that say they can't gain any weight seriously overestimate their calories just like obese people saying they can't lose weight eating 1500 calories are seriously underestimating their calories.

 

[JaKob]

I don't disagree with anything in this statement.

Maybe I misinterpreted your original post. In the context of the discussion previously had in this thread, by your post I thought you meant "people may have neurochemistry that is simply unfavorable and therefore it's not their personality that is responsible for their behavior".

If you were just trying to describe how many people are quick to point the finger and ascribe "moral blame" to the behaviors of others, then I can agree with you on this point.

Yeah i was referring to that as a fallacious paradigm others have espoused. I was criticizing it. The idea that somehow "character" is separate, and in no way constituted or influenced by things like neurochemistry. As if there's some kind of transcendence beyond anything of the kind.

I agree with everything you've said. I wasn't very clear in distinguishing between my views and those i was criticizing. My bad!

If you were just trying to describe how many people are quick to point the finger and ascribe "moral blame" to the behaviors of others, then I can agree with you on this point - that's exactly what i was trying to convey.