It exists in the same line of argumentation as being against student loan debt forgiveness because one had to pay off one's own loans, except about something that is even more determined by one's birth.
Some alleles give people a tendency to gain weight via a higher appetite, slower metabolism, addiction to substances (in this case food). But no matter your alleles, you still have to pick up your fork and start attacking those triple portions of nachos. Let's not forget that 1-2 generations ago, the percentage of obese people was much lower than today, but the proportions of the above-mentioned alleles are very unlikely to have changed in 30-50 years.
Perhaps food is more ultra-processed now. Micro-plastics. Gut flora disruption. Seed oils. 5G vaccines. Name a fad and there's a [whatever the antonym for panacea is] for why obesity rates are higher.
It's feels unfair that a single Halloween Oreo cookie is 70 calories. The caloric density of modern and delicious food is absolutely insane.
And so, aside from a rare treat, which mostly leaves me sad (because I only get to eat two), I eat things that aren't ultra-processed 5G seed oil based. And my weight remains controlled despite said 5G vaccines, seed oils, and gut flora disruption.
Ozympic seems like a net good if it helps people control their weight. It just always seems preposterous when people blame "ultra-processed food" as the root problem, rather than the over consumption of said food as the problem.
I wrote that someone has to pick up that fork to eat those nachos. However, processed food makes it easier to eat more calories than you need. Ice cream used to be a once-a-week treat. Now, you can buy a pint of a caloric bomb for 2.99 USD. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, but as someone who exercises frequently and eats similar food when traveling, I can say with conviction that something is going on with the food sold in the US. For example, I often get pimples on my face after eating pork or beef in the US. I never get pimples when I eat pork or beef in Europe or South America.
I have more problems not getting fat when I'm in the US and I feel more bloated. The usual explanation, which has merit, is that portions are bigger in the US and people move less than in other countries. However, I eat 95% of my meals at home, cooked by me, and I exercise 1 or 2 times daily.
>It exists in the same line of argumentation as being against student loan debt forgiveness because one had to pay off one's own loans
No, it doesn't. There's no fixed national budget for weight loss. There's also not perverse incentives that come with subsidizing supply. It's not an economic question.
There are valid policy-based arguments to be had against student debt loan forgiveness, but the personal grievance of "why should they get a break when I paid off my debt?" is not one.
In order to forgive a debt, someone else has to assume the debt. Nobody cares about that in general. If, say, someone's parent assumes the student debt of their child, you are not going to hear a thing. But when it is government forgiveness the constituents of that government often feel they are being left the bag holder, which is where you start to see complaint.
If you lose weight on Ozempic, there is no evidence that someone else needs to assume the weight you lost, so it is not clear where you find a parallel.
The parallel is "I had to work hard to lose weight / maintain my low weight, why should they get a magic pill?" Unfairness can be perceived even when it only exists in a vague cosmic sense and has no bearing in material reality.
I think you forgot to mention the parallel? I guess, seemingly, that would be "I had to work hard to pay my student debt, why should they get to have their parents pay for it?" but that is not a sentiment that is common enough to speak of. Yeah, sure, I'm sure at least one person in history has had that thought before, but not the point of it being notable to talk about on HN. Most people who see another have their loans paid for think "Good for them". There must be something else?
The "I had to work hard to pay my student loan, and now I have to work hard to pay yours too?" sentiment is much more common and I could see that show up here, but it is not a parallel. That's a very different idea that has no parallel. I don't have to work off the weight you lost.
"being against student loan debt forgiveness because one had to pay off one's own loans"
> but that is not a sentiment that is common enough to speak of
It crops up every time the issue is discussed online. On places like Twitter, at least.
> I don't have to work off the weight you lost.
Again, this blend of envy, spite, and petty injustice crops up quite often. "Why did I have to exercise when they could afford a gastric bypass?"
You seem unfamiliar with how petty people can be online. There are plenty of people who get personally aggrieved when they think someone got a free lunch / might get a free lunch even when the lunch isn't paid by them / they were unfortunate enough to miss out on free lunch day.
> that is not a sentiment that is common enough to speak of
> It crops up every time the issue is discussed online. On places like Twitter, at least.
Only when it pertains to government forgiveness, because of the bag holding problem.
Nobody cares when it is an unrelated entity that is willing to become the bag holder (e.g. parents). In fact, it has become almost expected that entities like parents will become the bag holders when it comes to college debt.
The bag holding problem is something quite different, not a parallel.
> "Why did I have to exercise when they could afford a bypass?"
So it crops up quite often, but only when it comes to weight loss-related matters?
I am familiar with the common use, but it speaks to people in a lower class envying those in a higher class. Here we have people in the same class, just with different paths to get there. So, you must have a pet definition?
Regardless, I've never heard a "self-made" rich person complain "I had to work hard to get here. Why oh why wasn't I born rich like that Saudi prince?". They seem to only ever be proud that they were able to become rich. Again, I suppose it has probably happened once, but does not seem common enough to speak of.
It might be more common in terms of political power rather than wealth. Nixon, for example, hated the Ivy League-educated eastern establishment ruling elites that he displaced.
Probably not, though, given that you couldn't find an example of envy and decided to randomly reach for hatred instead for some reason. Again, I suppose it has probably happened once, but is clearly not common enough to speak of (you literally were unable to speak of it).
Here, a House Representative questioning student loan relief announced in August 2022. Not framed as an issue of others paying for the debtors, but rather "what relief do those who already paid off their debt receive?"
Valid question. Given that they are assuming the debt, what relief are they getting to pass it off onto the next bag holder? Anyone assuming the debt would ask the same question.
No, you keep finding diversions to avoid answer the question.
Let's face it: The question is unanswerable as there is no parallel and there never was.
Your never ending quest to try and find that which does not exist is commendable, and hilarious, but to think that it is answering some kind of question is nonsensical.
Here's an example of someone who's paid off their debt, is unhappy at the prospect of others getting relief, but not complaining about being the one to have to pick up the tax bill in order to deliver that relief:
> Student loan forgiveness rewards bad decision making
I took out a $160,000 student load a decade ago
I saved every penny I made to pay it back in full. I ended up paying over $300,000 on the loan
Now I'm getting punished because I was too responsible and paid back my loan too quickly?
I lived in a $500 a month rat and cockroach infested sun room in Boston for years to pay back this debt
If I would have instead ignored my debt and bought cars and useless luxury items I'd get a free $300,000 check?
I'm as a-political as it gets. I hate all politicians. But this is insanity and rewards the WORST behavior
It has been said over and over that it no doubt has happened, but is not common enough that anyone here would speak to it. Digging deep into the depths of what HN largely considers a trolling website to find some random nobody has ever heard of once saying what you want to hear is not indicative of anything.
I'm surprised you don't take your comedy show on the road. People would pay good money for the laughs you've brought us.
> but is not common enough that anyone here would talk about it
But I don't care about whether or not people on HN would talk about it. I'm saying that it exists. Ultimately it is a moral judgment about personal responsibility. You find it in attacks on "welfare queens" similarly. Yes, of course there is always the element of being an aggrieved taxpayer. But there is also the vague cosmic - puritanism? - critique of "why should they have it easy when I had it hard?" I'm glad that you uphold HN as a place that is above such sentiment. But here I agree with you! I do not take such critiques seriously. Yet they abound, and they are a clear parallel to people attacking Ozempic because they find it "too easy" for becoming or staying thin. And so, we come full circle.
> not indicative of anything.
This entire sub-discussion is about fallacious arguments, and it is a fallacious argument that I am saying it exists. Therefore it is entirely germane for me to bring up a trolling website to find an argument used by a random nobody, as it proves the existence of a narrative. Perhaps you may quibble that it is not a narrative that exists in abundance. Then we are simply arguing preponderance, because I have already established existence.
> But I don't care about whether or not people on HN would talk about it.
You certainly don't have to care, but that is the discussion taking place. It is a necessary precondition for this supposed parallel to exist.
If you're trying to tell us that you can't focus and are flailing around like one of those whacky blow up thingys down at the used car lot, have fun with that. It no doubt goes well with your comedy show.
> This entire sub-discussion is about fallacious arguments
Oh, I see, so you really are unable to focus. I get why you appear to be so confused now. It is not so much that you're confused in what you write, but that you're off in your own world. Well, that's pretty funny, at least.
