Small Questions - Part 7

[Doctor_Wu]

The Small Questions return... for those new members who wish to weigh in on the older questions... you may review them here (http://forums.slickdeals.net/search.php?searchid=1562732).


On to the question...


Should we consider a person who is unable to control their appetites to be 'free'?


Of course by 'appetite' I mean any indulgence... not just food.

[CycnuS]

We should consider them "FAT".

[madsquid]

Someone without control over themself is absolutely not free. Anyone without that control has undoubtedly lost freedom... which is why it is interesting to me that people always want the "freedom" to develop alcoholism, or get addicted to cigarettes/porn/gambling/drugs/etc. When people ask for the freedom for such things, what they really ask for is the ability to deny themselves freedom.

[BikerEric]

We should consider them "FAT".
hey! I resemble that statement!
;)

[Marshall]

"Should we consider a person who spends an hour a day on SlickDeals to be 'fat'?

[dalokgawd]

Not in the strictest sense of the word. If they are controlled by their desires, then they do not entirely have control over their own fate and thusly are not free.

[dalesd]

To me, it's just a person with no self-control. You don't want to eat something? Then don't eat it! Twinkies do not have mind-control powers.

Are they free? Yes, they're free to choose whether or not to endulge.

[Doctor_Wu]

To me, it's just a person with no self-control. You don't want to eat something? Then don't eat it! Twinkies do not have mind-control powers.

Are they free? Yes, they're free to choose whether or not to endulge.


You should vote. :look:

[danlbuckley]

We should consider them "FAT".

Not necessarily. They could use the old binge-'n-purge technique. :vomit:

[dalesd]

You should vote. :look:
How? I disagree with the basic premise of the question.

[Lagkiller]

I agree with dale on this one, I disagree with the premise of the question. It is leading and would exhibit a response that is not indicitive of the true belief.

No one's eating is beyond their control

[Doctor_Wu]

No one's eating is beyond their control


I even sought to clarify what I meant by "appetite".

"Of course by 'appetite' I mean any indulgence... not just food."


Beyond that... on has the ability to qualify what their yes means here in the thread discussion...

[The Raddish]

Should we consider a person who is unable to control their appetites to be 'free'?
Define, please. I don't believe such a condition exists. Unwilling maybe, but not unable.

Based on this, I can't answer your poll.

[madsquid]

Define, please. I don't believe such a condition exists. Unwilling maybe, but not unable.
That's debatable. For the sake of the question, I assumed that such a condition does exist. And if it does, then it definitely is a limit on freedom. If not, then the question doesn't really matter.

[someone28624]

Not necessarily. They could use the old binge-'n-purge technique. :vomit:
Oh there we go, because bulemics are truely free. Give me a break. There are few situatiosn I can think of where the person has less control than in an eating disorder. By the way, you don't have to necessarily be thin to have bulemia, when purging some calories can stay in.

[XXnarg]

With the exception of some schizophrenics and other mentally ill people, we are all free to seek the help of others if a behavior is beyond our control. Thus we are free, even if do not have control over the specific behavior.

We are free in the same sense that we have options but only within the restrictions of nature. No one is free from gravity, thirst, hunger, or death, but we have choices for some of the things over which we have control.

[Doctor_Wu]

Define, please. I don't believe such a condition exists. Unwilling maybe, but not unable.

Based on this, I can't answer your poll.


Perhaps Small Question 7 does presuppose a 'no' answer to Small Question 3.5 (http://forums.slickdeals.net/t73117.html?).

Though I do believe the answer to small question 3.5 is -no- ... to illustrate I will post a post here that i posted there...


What if instead of saying 'learning self control', we say... learning to control themselves. Or learning to control their appetites.

If one cannot control one's actions... and they repeatedly end up in jail... are we to believe they know how to control themselves, but choose not to? Or are we to believe they are incapable of controlling themselves ...at least for now.... that they have yet to learn how to control themselves.

I don't think we can say that just b/c they don't control themselves; they choose not to... many would like to...many would choose to if they knew how... yet their appetites get the best of them.

The glutton who longs to be thin may be considered out of control in one area of life. Though they are not mentally unfit. They simply have not learned to control their appetites. And may never.

In this case... are we to believe that a person who is in the grip of an addiction (such as SD) is simply unwilling to control themselves?

There is that old expression ... the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. One is inclined to think there are some appetites that some people are unable to conquer.

So maybe Raddish... the question for you is... "If a person is one of those persons who is so weakminded as to be unable to conquer their appetites... should we consider them free?"

[Schly]

Sorry, but addicts are people who have CHOSEN a path and have chosen the freedom to kill themselves with whatever habit they enjoy the most.

Everyone is tempted by inappropriate behavior to some degree. It's those that cross the line and indulge that pay the price for that CHOICE.

If you use cocaine, or crack, or Meth, or Heroin, you might be able to NOT use it at anytime, or you may be hooked after the first use. Same with alcohol, same with having sex with rubber suited hermaphrodites.

Regardless, the risks are commonly known by the vast majority of the population long before they get to the age that they are actually able to participate in these activities.

Many people CHOOSE to risk it anyway. That is freedom.

Blaming the addiction is a crutch. What is the most important thing? To survive? Or to get high/fat/infected/etc.? Not all people are equipped to handle the freedom that is available in this country.

There will always be people who make the wrong choices, no matter how many laws you pass.

[ImaginaryFriend]

That would depend on whether it is really an inability or an unwillingness.

[Jhaan]

There are so many self made chains in our lives. Addictions are certainly one of them.

[seyejames]

nop they are really in bondage and total loss of there body

[Parafly9]

No way. Inability to control an appetite (or desire) means you don't have freedom over your willpower. And that is never good.

On the flip side, I would suggest you ARE indeed free if you have the ability to accept OR deny a desire.