We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, March 30. 2016
It's about a pattern of impulsive eating, mainly carbs, and it tends to make people heavy. There are pills for it.
It is interesting to me that so many of the things that used to be called sins are now called Disorders.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
First it started out as sin, then they made many sins a crime, now those that aren't crimes are becoming disorders. The common factor is meddling in the lives of others over things that aren't the business of the meddlers. It is the desire to control others, to enslave others to the desires of those who presume themselves better.
Even now, without consent the sorry bastards have presumed to tie healthcare of all to all and use that as their excuse to meddle in the lives of others.
Now this is a very interesting matter, and were it borne in mind by our modem legislators they would escape a good deal of unintelligent legislation; that is, the distinction between a sin and a crime. A sin is against the church, or against one's conscience; matter, therefore, for the priest, or one's spiritual adviser. A crime is an offense against other men; that is, against the state, in which all are concerned. Under the intelligent legislation of the twelfth century all matters which were sins, which concerned the conscience, were left to the church to prevent or punish. For the same reason usury was matter for the priest — because it was regarded under the doctrines of the Bible as a sin. This notion prevailed down to the early legislation of the colony of Massachusetts, though doubtless many things which were then considered sins would now be regarded as crimes, such as bigamy, for instance. The distinction is, nevertheless, a valid one, and we shall have occasion frequently to refer to it. We shall find that the defect of much of our modem legislation — prohibition laws, for instance — is that they attempt to treat as crimes, as offenses against the state, matters which are merely sins, offenses against the conscience or the individual who commits them.
--Popular Law-making: A Study of the Origin, History, and Present Tendencies of Law-making by Statute, Frederic Jesup Stimson (1910)
Thank you for sharing the article discussing crimes against the state versus morals or conscience. Such angle of thought could be a helpful guide to legal clarity. If only our legislaturers sought to refine and make laws more concise over time instead of acting on the misguided premise that their job is measured by making more and more "laws"....if only...
You Can Buy an Italian Castle—and Part of Its Adjoining Town—for $8.3 Million
from the article:
For $8 million, you can purchase a five-bedroom co-op in Manhattan’s Upper East Side, or a mid-century mansion in the Hollywood Hills owned by actors Emily Blunt and John Krasinski. However, you’ll get way more bang for your buck in Umbria, Italy.
According to Business Insider, a 40-bedroom, 20-bathroom castle near the small medieval village of Todi, located about two hours north of Rome, is on the market for $8.3 million. The hillside estate is called Castle di Sismano, and it dates back to the 10th century. It boasts a functioning bed-and-breakfast with its own restaurant, a pool, and 2100 acres of forests, pastures, and olive groves. The property also comes with parts of the surrounding town, and a residential complex of buildings and gardens.
Castle di Sismano’s historic legacy is equally impressive. Bloomberg writes that the princes of Corsini, a prominent historical family of Florence, have passed the estate down through their family for 1054 years. Two of its owners became popes—a fact that’s only overshadowed by the fact that the property itself was first donated by Emperor Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor, in 962 CE.
Looks right up your alley BD.
Yeah! Noticed that as well.
Sin = your fault.
Disorder = someone else's fault; which you pay money to alleviate (i.e. extirpate the sin!). Its less painful than Confession, but the only question is who you pay: Big Pharma or Big Religion?
I don't think you mean 'overeating'. My teenagers all over ate and it seemed quite normal. Perhaps what you meant was becoming overweight and presumably that meant you over ate and therefore by conflation and conclusion over eating is the problem. To this day my second youngest over eats and weighs maybe 130 lbs. Should his 'over eating' be shamed? I think what is actually happening is genetics. More than likely if your parents were overweight you will be too. More than likely if your parents were thin you will be too. And more than likely if you are overweight thin people will conclude (behind your back) that you over eat.
If it's all genetic, then why have obesity rates tripled in the last few decades?
Binge eating is a behavior, and as such it is mostly learned. Often times parents can teach very unhealthy behaviours to their children.
A sin is a personal character problem and as such fixing it is between you and your God. Someone with an eating disorder might not be sinning, they might just be very stupid and/or ignorant. Binge eating is a weakness, but it is not necessarily a sin (although it can be). Explaining to someone that they're eating like an idiot and that they can change it is much simpler and more effective than assuming that someone is a sinner and then "explaining" to them they are a terrible person and that God hates them for it.
Signed, someone who has always been thin.
I started gaining weight when I was in my late 20s and kept it up for decades. I can't see that genetics has a whole lot to do with it. It's pretty simple: I ate as much as I wanted, all the time. Now I eat less, and have lost not quite half of what I put on over all those years. My genetics haven't changed, but how much I eat has.
I imagine genetics may have a lot to do with how much overeating you can get away with, on the margins. It still comes down to calories in, calories out. Eat too much, and you'll gain weight. In fact, that's how I'd define over-eating. It's like filling up the gas tank and then starting to pour the excess gasoline into the back seat. I could complain, "But genetics causes me to get great gas mileage, so I don't need all this gas," but the fact remains that no one but myself is available to stop putting gas in the car when it's had enough for whatever its mileage happens to be. It's more about facing reality than affixing blame.
Like many things in life "it's complicated". If you arwe willing to look at the data and facts with an open mind you will see that "obesity" (that is true obesity, not BMI obesity) is indeed genetic. If you have always been thin I doubt you could reach 400 lbs even if someone promised to give you a million dollars to do so. While people who are 400 lbs simply cannot even lose 150 lbs on a starvation diet. It is genetic pure and simple.
As to BMI obesity (which is merely being overweight) and BMI overweight which in most cases is being "normal" weight. That is simply a result of available food supply, personal preference AND genetics. If you are 45 or so and suddenly you gain 30-40 lbs more than likely so did your mother or father. However if you are simply BMI 29 more than likely you are enjoying life and food, don't feel you look bad and/or don't feel the need to be "skinny".
Two important issues about BMI overweight:
1. is the obesity paradox. In spite of the name it has the greatest effect on the "overweight" range of BMI 25-30. What this is in a nutshell is that using the BMI scale statistically people who are one tick (or one whole number) above the "normal" BMI range are healthier and live linger than someone one tick below the normal range. Using this data the "ideal" BMI is in fact 27.5 which by todays standards would be overweight. Ironic huh?
2. The BMI is a totally conjured up scale with zero scientific or common sense basis. And it fails across the board for tall or short people and large boned or naturally thin people. It simply fails to be of any value in determining health or future health. Why is it used? Because certain agendized groups can use it to push their agenda.
Binge eating may well be the norm for humans up until we became farmers. Is it a sin? Seriously you would go there? Binge drinking might be a sin or certainly stupid but binge eating is a choice. I have a good friend who all his adult life has only eaten once a day. Still does it today and he is 71 years old. He eats dinner (what I always knew as supper). He seems healthy, he is slightly overweight and always has been but not what I would call either obese or fat. Is his choice wrong? I wouldn't do it but I'm not sure it is either unhealthy or wrong. It is a choice, nothing more. And when he eats dinner he eats about 2400 calories more or less which probably could be called binge eating. Why is that a problem for anyone?
Why would we think that 400-lb. people can't lose weight on a starvation diet? Of course they can, and do. There's no such thing as a person who doesn't lose weight when the food has been cut off; if there were, people wouldn't die of starvation. Where do we imagine the matter and energy comes from to run a human body? If it's not coming in the mouth, it's being brought out of storage in the body's tissues. It can't leak in through the air.
Well except for the real experience of this issue you would be correct. Logically a starvation diet would get a 400 lb person down to 170 lbs and they could maintain it. But it doesn't happen. It is easy for a 220 lb person to get down to 170 and maintain it that happens often. But in general if a obese person (lets say a woman 5'3 at 400 lbs) makes a heroic effort to lose weight they are likely to not be able to reach 170 and would consider 200-220 a success. Then within five years they are back to 400 and more often closer to 450. Why? Gentics. I can eat everything I want all day all week all month and not gain a pound. Why? Genetics. My middle son who is 30 weighs about 135 lbs. When he was 18 he weighed 115 and had to gain 10 lbs to be able to enlist in the army. He eats like a horse. It's a family joke about how much he eats. So why doesn't he weight 400 lbs? genetics.
As to your earlier point that it is over eating so therefore it isn't genetics. I disagree. Over eating IS a genetic trait. You body is telling you to over eat. For most people when they eat a large meal they skip the next meal or eat lightly. Some still over eat next meal. Why? Genetics (in most cases).
Where the issue goes off the rails is when people believe that they are normal and so everyone else is like them. Simply not true. Most big people (that means heavy as well as tall) are genetically big. Their parents are big and theirt children are big. Not necessarily obese but big. Most people with big bellies can trace that trait back to their parents with big bellies. Again not necessarily obese (as in weighs 400 lbs) but clearly 'fat'. Then there are the many who are actually skinny to the point of being too skinny. They typically aren't dieting or eating one meal a day and in fact often they eat full daily calories. Why? Genetics. More than likely their parents (or at least one of them) is skinny as well. Another genetic tendency is that the child follows the weight traits of the same gender parent. It is common to see families where the girls are all overweight and the boys are not, you look at the parents and the mother is overweight and the father is not. Genetics!
We all have the ability to modify our weight up or down by a few pounds. Anyone who is 20 -30 lbs overweight can with little effort lose that weight. The genetics is more of a weight range thing than it is some absolute. At the same time since we can all easily lose 20-30 lbs by dieting we generally will quickly assume that someone who is 250 lbs over weight should be able to easily lose those 250 lbs. But they cannot. Their genetics kick in and their body retains fat, increases hunger and slows physical activity.
I have never met a obese person who liked being obese. Without exception they all want to lose weight and without exception they try to lose weight. It would be a mistake to simply believe that obese people choose that. They don't have the same body/genetics that the rest of us do. They literally have to exist on a starvation diet to lose weight and still they cannot get down to a 'normal' weight. Even those obese people who through Herculean efforts are able to lose 200 lbs they STILL have to exist on a severely limited diet just to maintain their new overweight but not obese weight. They are different from the rest of us. They are genetically programmed to be obese.