{"id":4565,"date":"2018-04-30T05:44:03","date_gmt":"2018-04-30T05:44:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2018\/04\/30\/addicted-to-food\/"},"modified":"2018-04-30T05:44:03","modified_gmt":"2018-04-30T05:44:03","slug":"addicted-to-food","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2018\/04\/30\/addicted-to-food\/","title":{"rendered":"Addicted to Food?"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is a re-post (re-entry?) from 9 December 2009.  Re-posts are the re-runs of the blogosphere. You don't watch a Twilight Zone<\/em> or Seinfeld<\/em> episode only once, do you?  The message delivered below is very important and needs be repeated and repeated again.<\/span><\/p>\n

………………<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Can one be addicted to food?<\/span><\/a> If yes, then I am addicted to exposing liberal nonsense. What I have said more than once about the non-addictiveness of tobacco can be applied mutatis mutandis<\/em> to food 'addiction':<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

To confuse psychological habituation with addiction is conceptual slovenliness. Addiction, if it means anything definite, has to involve (i) a physiological dependence (ii) on something harmful to the body (iii) removal of which would induce serious withdrawal symptoms. One cannot be addicted to nose-picking, to running, to breathing, or to caffeine. Furthermore, (iv) it is a misuse of language to call a substance addictive when only a relatively small number of its users develop \u2014 over a sufficient period of time with sufficient frequency of use \u2014 a physical craving for it that cannot be broken without severe withdrawal symptoms. Else one would have to call peanuts toxic because a tiny number of people have severe allergic reactions to them. Heroin is addictive; nicotine is not. To think otherwise is to use \u2018addiction\u2019 in an unconscionably loose way.<\/span><\/p>\n

Avoiding loose talk in serious contexts is a good part of proper intellectual hygiene.<\/span><\/p>\n

Liberals and leftists engage in this loose talk for at least two reasons. <\/span><\/p>\n

First, it aids them in their denial of individual responsibility. They would divest individuals of responsibility for their actions, displacing it onto factors, such as \u2018addictive\u2019 substances, external to the agent. Their motive is to grab more power for themselves by increasing the size and scope of government: the less self-reliant and responsible individuals are, the more they need the nanny state and people like Hillary, who gives some evidence of aspiring to be Nanny-in-Chief. <\/span><\/p>\n

Second, loose talk of \u2018addiction\u2019 fits in nicely with what I call their misplaced moral enthusiasm. Incapable of appreciating a genuine issue such as partial-birth abortion, they invest their moral energy in pseudo-issues.<\/span><\/p>\n

The main point is that tobacco products can be enjoyed in relatively harmless ways, just as alcoholic beverages can be enjoyed in relatively harmless ways. I have never met a cigarette yet that killed anybody. One has to smoke them, one has to smoke a lot of them over many years, and each time you light up it is a free decision.<\/span><\/p>\n

Some people feel that all smokers are irrational. This too is nonsense, if we are talking about means-ends rationality. Someone who smokes a pack of cigarettes per day is assuming a serious health risk. But it may well be that the pleasure and alertness the person receives from smoking is worth the risk within the person\u2019s value scheme. <\/span><\/p>\n

Different people evaluate the present in its relation to the future in different ways. I tend to sacrifice the present for the future, thereby deferring gratification. Hence my enjoyment of the noble weed is abstemious indeed, consisting of an occasional load of pipe tobacco, or an occasional cigar. (I recommend the Arturo Fuente \u2018Curly Head\u2019 Maduro: cheap, but good.) But I would not think to impose my abstemiousness, or time-preference, on anyone else.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This is a re-post (re-entry?) from 9 December 2009.  Re-posts are the re-runs of the blogosphere. You don't watch a Twilight Zone or Seinfeld episode only once, do you?  The message delivered below is very important and needs be repeated and repeated again. ……………… Can one be addicted to food? If yes, then I am addicted to … Continue reading “Addicted to Food?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[112,154],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4565","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-alcohol-tobacco-and-firearms","category-food-and-drink"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4565","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4565"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4565\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4565"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4565"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4565"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}