You think exercise is "not that important in the grand scheme of things"? I urge you to do a bit of research on the topic, if you care about living a long and healthy life.
To be clear, I'm not using this post to "dog whistle" that people should not exercise for fitness.
I have gone through multiple bouts of being able to do weightlifting for example for 6 months or so at a time. However, I always end up stopping (for longer than I could do it for) because it just isn't enjoyable. The monotony of doing the same lifts over and over again (even if the weight was increasing) just wasn't engaging enough to keep it as a part of my lifestyle.
I discovered rock climbing a year and a half ago and have been going every 2 or 3 days since (other than 2 weeks off one time due to injury). It's such an interesting sport that combines strength, agility, problem solving and collaboration. It's actually engaging which means I never have to be disciplined to continue doing it on days I don't feel up to it. The exercise isn't the point and yet my body is in better shape then it's ever been.
I think more people need to find that something.
And that's okay for me, and it should be okay for you, too.
That's a bad comparison though.
A better one would be the effects that you losing weight (or getting in shape or whatever) would have on your life vs the effects that nuclear proliferation would have on your life.
Or the effects that globally eliminating obesity would have on life expectancy vs the effects that solving proliferation would have on life expectancy.
The problem with your argument are the words, "you" and "your".
You are making the mistake that pj50c is exactly arguing against. People arguing in effect, that "__you__ should do something."
"If only __you__ understood...."
"If only __you__ could control your lizard brain telling you you're hungry...."
Those are your beliefs. They are not mine. And this is what people talk about when respecting "boundaries".
I'm not saying you can't have you're opinion. And you can say, "I believe x, y, and z. And here's why...." And I'd be fine with that.
In fact, I'd probably be more open to listening to you.
My argument is that my carb intake is irrelevant compared to nuclear proliferation.
My argument goes like this. Carb intake does probably lower life significantly, but doesn't lead to potentially worse outcomes compared to say nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.
Carb intake usually affects people's life not early, but late. And if you believe that "carb intake" is a rational choice and not an urge made by the lizard brain then I would argue it's my choice -- my freedom -- and well get a boundary.
OTOH, a nuclear incident would affect a broad swath of people across all ages. And it's not their choice.
>Carb intake usually affects people's life not early, but late.
It affects people before more severe medical consequences start setting in too.