Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
How does this relate to what I said about self-selection between obese and non-obese Americans?
We seem to be discussing two very different things. I've said nothing about foreigner's perceptions, but about what the producers of documentaries &c choose to put in them.
|
I think there is a bit of switch tracking going on here. From my understanding, Al Darc was talking about his perception of Americans being relatively healthy weight in the 70s, but being overweight now. His opinion seemed to be based on what he saw on TV.
You mentioned that fat people are more common in places like Walmart, and people at healthier weights are more common at Whole Foods, and suggested that self-selection can explain why people in the '70s looked thinner compared with today.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounded like you are arguing that Americans in the 70s and Americans today are not much different in size; that it is a matter of perception and not reality that accounts for the difference.
Quote:
|
You seem to be saying that all Americans are overweight - that it's a US weight problem - while I'm trying to say that it's very much a matter of individual lifestyle choices.
|
As I said before, when I'm speaking in general, it means that what I'm saying generally holds true. The implication is that what I'm generally saying might not specifically hold true in every case. When I say that 75% of Americans are at least overweight, that implies that 25% are not. If you catch me using absolute terms, please point it out, as I try to use them very sparingly.
I made no comment about lifestyle choices.
Quote:
|
Police are the ones who advocate most loudly for these laws, Further, that "just enforcing the law" defense really doesn't work that well. Can people who choose to work in a field that requires them to do unethical things be ethical people?
|
Rarely do I hear of police picketing or advocating for certain laws to be passed. Far more common is to be approached by a student wanting a signature to endorse some nonsense proposed law.
It's absolutely impossible for law enforcement to function if they are expected to enforce only the laws they individually see as being valid. That is the definition of chaos. It would be like launching into battle with a plan, but every soldier making their own plan based on emotion. The whole thing is doomed to failure.
Most jobs require people to act in suboptimal ethical ways. Giving in to the minor disagreements is what keeps the whole thing functional and moving forward. It's only the big ethical issues that warrant defiance. Enforcement of drug laws is a minor ethical issue. It's not like people are born with illicit drugs, or have no way to avoid them, or require them to survive.
I agree that we don't handle drugs properly, but it certainly isn't the same ethical dilemma as sending Jews into a gas chamber.