I didn’t imply anywhere that self-injury caused depression, and I am bewildered about why you think I did except by vague analogy to eating ice cream. I just think self-injury causes injury, that being why it is called that.
As I said elsewhere, the fact that all examples must be some amount of loaded does not mean that this is the least loaded one, or that effort to reduce loadedness in examples is unwarranted.
That was exposition on why I thought “self injury” was less obviously harmful because you said you didn’t see what I was saying. I wasn’t saying you said self injury causes depression and am somewhat bewilered about why you think I did.
“I just think self-injury causes injury, that being why it is called that.” This seems to have entirely skipped the point I was making.
self injury causes injury yes, if you’re going to use it by definition but plenty of things which are called self injury involve no injury. I imagine the reason it is called that is that people don’t always use compound words like they’re the words they’re made of. To clarify (feel free not to) do, relatively light cuts on one’s arms count as self injury?
I also didn’t say effort to reduce loadedness in examples is unwarranted or this is the least loaded example. Examples of the form “what would you do in cases where what someone (thinks they want) is something that you know actually is harmful to them, such as thing-that-is-deemed-harmful...” are always going to be loaded with whatever standard determines the thing to be harmful.
Even swapping in antiwireheading as the thing the person wants, and calling it harmful is going to upset masochists, or people who feel they deserve punishment. And finding something literally everyone agrees on is going to load it with whatever preference everyone shares.
An unloaded example simply needs to not label the behaviour harmful.
1) I don’t perceive myself as using an atypical tone relative to how I usually talk about things, and don’t usually have problems with how people react to my tone. I don’t like the way you’ve presented these questions. If you think I’m presenting my comments badly, please tell me where and how and why, don’t just insinuate it in this condescendingly didactic way.
2) I’m going to rephrase your question so it doesn’t presuppose an answer (the word “overeating” does that, although not completely; there are possible interpretations that don’t mean “eating enough to get fat”, but not ones that are in very common use). My rephrasing is “If most people’s obesity could be reduced by the people eating less, would you want to know?” (let me know if this is an illegitimate recasting and feel free to provide your own nonpresumptive revision). But as it happens, I do already think that. I think most overweight and obese people, if they ate less, would be less fat. I just think that this in no way justifies a stigma or even particularly much well-meaning advice against eating, or against eating particular foods or amounts, or against being fat.
3) No. I’m upset that you have chosen to locate-that-hypothesis at me such that I now have to defend myself and even then the accusation will float around indefinitely.
I apologize for the leading questions. I didn’t want to make outright accusations of tone when I wasn’t sure how you had intended your comments. Your comments had seemed brief and chastising, and I wasn’t sure what you were trying to communicate.
However, your answers make sense, and your rephrasing of my second question is fair.
Although, I am still unsure why you object to the use of the “poor diet choices as destructive behavior” analogy. It seems comparable to the drug-use analogy you propose as an alternative.
Although, I am still unsure why you object to the use of the “poor diet choices as destructive behavior” analogy. It seems comparable to the drug-use analogy you propose as an alternative.
There is almost no consensus about food. I think there is probably someone not obviously a complete nutter who can find a reason to object to anything other than raw vegetables and water. The only things that everyone agrees are definitely bad to eat are literal poison. (And I’d appreciate it if everyone did not take that phrase as an invitation to say “sugar is literal poison” because no it isn’t, I could eat a five-pound bag of sugar over the course of a couple days if I really wanted to and I’m sure it’d disagree with me but I wouldn’t be dead or acutely harmed any more than I would if I ate that much lettuce over the same period of time.)
Sure, there are always scare stories about how (insert target food) might be trouble because one study found a mild correlation. However, I think there are many diet choices that people make (myself included) that are conclusively unhealthy.
That’s not a consensus. That’s what one dude has to say, it’s ill-specified in every phrase, (my dad deems many things “not food” as a pejorative of sorts even when they would normally be termed so; what does “food” mean? What is “too much”? What fraction is “mostly”, and do arbitrary plants count?), and it’s not consensus.
“Consensus”, without a qualifier about among whom there is consensus, doesn’t mean “the people you prefer to listen to agree on this”.
I think anorexia, bulimia, and uncontrollable binge eating are unhealthy; to whatever extent those are diet “choices”, and to the extent that three is “many”, maybe I don’t disagree. I suspect that low-variety eating, ceteris paribus, may be unhealthy, but I don’t know it for sure, and have learned to believe in human heterogeneity. If I meet someone who lives on three foods I will restrain myself from interfering in any way other than offering them tasty other items to try if they want.
I didn’t imply anywhere that self-injury caused depression, and I am bewildered about why you think I did except by vague analogy to eating ice cream. I just think self-injury causes injury, that being why it is called that.
As I said elsewhere, the fact that all examples must be some amount of loaded does not mean that this is the least loaded one, or that effort to reduce loadedness in examples is unwarranted.
That was exposition on why I thought “self injury” was less obviously harmful because you said you didn’t see what I was saying. I wasn’t saying you said self injury causes depression and am somewhat bewilered about why you think I did.
“I just think self-injury causes injury, that being why it is called that.” This seems to have entirely skipped the point I was making.
self injury causes injury yes, if you’re going to use it by definition but plenty of things which are called self injury involve no injury. I imagine the reason it is called that is that people don’t always use compound words like they’re the words they’re made of. To clarify (feel free not to) do, relatively light cuts on one’s arms count as self injury?
I also didn’t say effort to reduce loadedness in examples is unwarranted or this is the least loaded example. Examples of the form “what would you do in cases where what someone (thinks they want) is something that you know actually is harmful to them, such as thing-that-is-deemed-harmful...” are always going to be loaded with whatever standard determines the thing to be harmful.
Even swapping in antiwireheading as the thing the person wants, and calling it harmful is going to upset masochists, or people who feel they deserve punishment. And finding something literally everyone agrees on is going to load it with whatever preference everyone shares.
An unloaded example simply needs to not label the behaviour harmful.
Yes, cutting one’s arms counts as self-injury...
I really don’t know what you’re talking about and would like to give up trying to now.
As a complete outsider to this conversation, it doesn’t look like you’re playing fair.
Can I ask you just to consider a few questions?
1) Do you think you are using a constructive tone?
2) If overeating were the primary cause of most obesity, would you want to know?
3) Is it your goal to shut down any discussion of this topic because of your personal sensibilities?
1) I don’t perceive myself as using an atypical tone relative to how I usually talk about things, and don’t usually have problems with how people react to my tone. I don’t like the way you’ve presented these questions. If you think I’m presenting my comments badly, please tell me where and how and why, don’t just insinuate it in this condescendingly didactic way.
2) I’m going to rephrase your question so it doesn’t presuppose an answer (the word “overeating” does that, although not completely; there are possible interpretations that don’t mean “eating enough to get fat”, but not ones that are in very common use). My rephrasing is “If most people’s obesity could be reduced by the people eating less, would you want to know?” (let me know if this is an illegitimate recasting and feel free to provide your own nonpresumptive revision). But as it happens, I do already think that. I think most overweight and obese people, if they ate less, would be less fat. I just think that this in no way justifies a stigma or even particularly much well-meaning advice against eating, or against eating particular foods or amounts, or against being fat.
3) No. I’m upset that you have chosen to locate-that-hypothesis at me such that I now have to defend myself and even then the accusation will float around indefinitely.
I apologize for the leading questions. I didn’t want to make outright accusations of tone when I wasn’t sure how you had intended your comments. Your comments had seemed brief and chastising, and I wasn’t sure what you were trying to communicate.
However, your answers make sense, and your rephrasing of my second question is fair.
Although, I am still unsure why you object to the use of the “poor diet choices as destructive behavior” analogy. It seems comparable to the drug-use analogy you propose as an alternative.
There is almost no consensus about food. I think there is probably someone not obviously a complete nutter who can find a reason to object to anything other than raw vegetables and water. The only things that everyone agrees are definitely bad to eat are literal poison. (And I’d appreciate it if everyone did not take that phrase as an invitation to say “sugar is literal poison” because no it isn’t, I could eat a five-pound bag of sugar over the course of a couple days if I really wanted to and I’m sure it’d disagree with me but I wouldn’t be dead or acutely harmed any more than I would if I ate that much lettuce over the same period of time.)
There’s pretty much consensus about some drugs.
I think there’s a decent consensus on food:
“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”
Sure, there are always scare stories about how (insert target food) might be trouble because one study found a mild correlation. However, I think there are many diet choices that people make (myself included) that are conclusively unhealthy.
Do you disagree?
That’s not a consensus. That’s what one dude has to say, it’s ill-specified in every phrase, (my dad deems many things “not food” as a pejorative of sorts even when they would normally be termed so; what does “food” mean? What is “too much”? What fraction is “mostly”, and do arbitrary plants count?), and it’s not consensus.
“Consensus”, without a qualifier about among whom there is consensus, doesn’t mean “the people you prefer to listen to agree on this”.
I think anorexia, bulimia, and uncontrollable binge eating are unhealthy; to whatever extent those are diet “choices”, and to the extent that three is “many”, maybe I don’t disagree. I suspect that low-variety eating, ceteris paribus, may be unhealthy, but I don’t know it for sure, and have learned to believe in human heterogeneity. If I meet someone who lives on three foods I will restrain myself from interfering in any way other than offering them tasty other items to try if they want.
I’m receiving signals that people would rather I not comment.
Thanks for engaging, you’ve explained your position well.