This kind of "abstinence-only personal fitness" might work fine for cigarettes, but kinda breaks down when it's stuff you've been fed since you were 5 weeks old and has been injected into most pre-prepared foods in a "sweetness war" that's lasted decades.
Want to break a sugar addiction, stop eating, fast until you've broken all food addictions and shed much of the stored calories, and then build up a better diet when you start eating again.
Some people might find that a bit offensive, but its not really a moral argument but one of self determination. You chose to consume something and you choose to continue to consume that substance. The fact that it is a lot easier to start and to keep doing it then it is to stop, doesnt mean that you dont have a choice in the matter. The ods being stacked against you doesnt rob you of, or relieve you from, your freedom to choose.
If I understand the the concept correctly, Alcoholics Anonymous is partly to blame here for that mindset, with the focus on your powerlessness. But if you want it or not, it still is your choice, not an easy one and not one with a right or wrong answer, but ultimately your choice.
You are fundamentally not an object at the mercy of your circumstances, as easy as life would be that way.
A fantastic lesson in how to not understand addiction in the slightest.
I look forward to a more mature response when you get past whatever juvenile phase your comment is the product of.
I understand addiction just fine, addictions can be broken: that is a fact; you can break your body of any such dependency and that you can, means it's your responsibility to do so and thus your fault if you remain addicted. I understand addiction, you don't understand that we don't all then conclude from that that one has no culpability. Other people have different moral reasoning than you do, that they disagree with you about something does not mean it's because they don't understand it.
Nobody's saying it's all somebody else's fault.
The only valid position to hold about this topic is that it's complex and multi-faceted.
Sure, self-discipline and personal choices are a factor - but the issue of what influences people's ability to exert self-discipline and make healthy choices is a vast and little-understood topic in its own right.
Whatever the case, if a child is raised on a high-carb/low-fat diet from a young age because their parents and schools accept the official advice, the carb-dependent metabolism they end up with by the time they reach adulthood will most certainly complicate their ability to make healthy choices.
> you still got addicted to it, you allowed it to happen
Societies everywhere restrict access to alcohol and tobacco to minors because it's accepted that minors are not capable of making fully-informed choices.
Why do you hold a different position regarding sugar?
Yes they are.
> The only valid position to hold about this topic is that it's complex and multi-faceted.
Incorrect. That's a valid position, it's certainly not the only one.
> the carb-dependent metabolism they end up with by the time they reach adulthood will most certainly complicate their ability to make healthy choices.
Nonsense, your metabolism is not set in stone, they can simply change their diets and if they don't, no one is to blame but them for their continued unhealthiness.
> Why do you hold a different position regarding sugar?
Sugar isn't remotely comparable to those two; they're restricted to minors because they're lethal drugs, sugar is not.
Please link to their comments.
>Incorrect. That's a valid position, it's certainly not the only one.
It is when you're talking about an organic system like a human body or any evolved system in nature.
> they can simply change their diets and if they don't, no one is to blame but them
No they can't; this is the entire point. If they could, they would, and metabolic illness would simply cease to be a problem rather than being one of the most pernicious problems in all of medicine.
> they're restricted to minors because they're lethal drugs, sugar is not
The evidence suggests otherwise.
But what's it to you anyway? What's your motivation for being utterly dogmatic and uncompromising, rather than engaging in a good-faith examination of the evidence?