What diet did you use exactly? I would love to give it a try.
31 karma · joined March 25, 2023
However, I do agree that we should keep the rest of humanity in mind.
Whenever there is background noise, I cannot decipher what someone is saying. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve been asked, “are you deaf?”
Could it be some form of ADHD?
"Addicts" do not consume drugs out of their own free will. They are addicts, their condition is out of their control. The dealers have free will and willingly choose to ruin society.
> Someone switches bags with you at the airport, in a part of the airport where no cameras are...you have no proof, and you are sentenced to death for being "such a menace"?
You raise a good point - and believe it or not, that is actually a fear I have of travelling to Singapore. Even though it's obviously unlikely, there is always that fear of "but what if it happens?"
This is why the defendant deserves the best defense possible, and that doesn't seem to have happened in this case. It's also why the government should absolutely prioritize a high level of certainty when assessing if someone is guilty of such a serious crime or not. Personally, I wish they opted for life sentences as opposed to execution. You can free someone from prison. You can't un-execute them.
> "Finally, does the prosecution and sentencing of many mainly black men in USA for small drug crimes"
America has for-profit prisons, corrupt police, and a long history of racism. These factors play a major role in why minorities are targeted.
I don't understand the logic here. Why not report it after the date? A rather strange number of coincidences... having a "prior arrest record in another drug use case" and not reporting his phone being stolen, only to be arrested for a drug event again.
Nevertheless, I would never cheat on my spouse, so I would not be in such a situation to begin with.
Regardless, it is possible that we are not really hearing his side of the story properly. He doesn't even have a lawyer, which is extremely concerning. Regardless of whether or not he is guilty, he deserves the best defense possible.
And yet Singapore is in the top 5 nations for highest GDP per capita (nominal). They also have one of the lowest rates of drug addiction. Surely they are doing something right. Which one would most people rather have - a prosperous life, or freedom to smoke weed? I choose the former.
> "anyone with a moderate amount of drugs"
But why do they have drugs to begin with? Nobody forced them to smoke weed. How does society benefit from the legalization of recreational drugs, which have negative effects on health? I highly recommend reading the history of Singapore's drug addiction crisis.
> "As another poster pointed out, it’s extremely suspicious that the penalized under drug policies seems to have a racial used tinge to it."
A cause for concern indeed. This should be investigated.
> "Did America’s strict drug laws create a better society than countries that tried more empathetic approaches with legalization and trying to help drug addicts get back on their feet?"
Unlike Singapore, America has for-profit prisons, so it's unlikely helping addicts get back on their feet is even a priority for this nation to begin with.
Now back to her case, the law firm's page about this case says that doctors initially said "Maddie’s Anxiety Is Causing Her Symptoms". Then, "the hospital referred Maddie to psychologists as they believed that Maddie’s symptoms arose from her anxiety."
This directly matches the dictionary definition of "gaslighting".
I've lost count of how many times I've heard doctors attributing something they don't know/understand to "anxiety". A genuine question - how is the notion of a serious side effect dismissed and considered "correlation", yet anxiety is absolutely ruled as "causation"?
I'm not sure if the "correlation != causation" argument works here. They have serious laws to prevent drug smuggling, and all the data shows that it is working. Logic suggests deterrent against serious crime => less serious crime
> "Moreover, I suspect like all places, Singaporians don’t have that much difficulty accessing illicit drugs."
"I suspect" is not a valid source.
"Singapore has one of the lowest rates of drug abuse in the world: 30 opiates abusers per 100,000 people" (source: The Washington Post)
Perhaps the law serving as a deterrent against heinous crimes works?
Also, "The Independent reported that Tangaraju had a prior arrest record in another drug use case, and that he was required to submit himself to regular urine tests. He had missed a test and was on his way to report to the police when he arrested."
Seems rather suspicious.
Nonetheless, the fact that he doesn't have a lawyer is extremely concerning from a human rights perspective.
That is concerning. Regardless of whether or not you think someone is guilty, they still deserve the best possible defense.
However, one thing I am genuinely curious about is why people condemn Singapore's solution in regards to substance smugglers. The state of their nation suggests that their solution works well.
Why should society condone the distribution of substances that ruin lives? I've seen people argue that capital punishment is unethical in this case. From the perspective of potential false-positive convictions, that is definitely a valid point. However, when people argue that the current punishment for such crime is too much, I must ask: what about the countless addicted people who lose their lives to drugs every year? Don't they deserve to live? Why does a smuggler who knowingly distributes a substance that destroys lives deserve sympathy? How can one expect such a menace to be "rehabilitated" in prison?
Regardless of what you think about the lab leak hypothesis, this statement is deeply concerning. Resorting to name-calling ("conspiracy theorist!") as opposed to logically assessing the merits of a statement does not sound like a scientific approach. (Not pointing at any particular wing of the political spectrum - I have seen this from all sides unfortunately.)
> Filippa Lentzos, codirector of the Centre for Science and Security Studies at King’s College, London, told the Wall Street Journal, “Some of the scientists in this area very quickly closed ranks.”3 She added, “There were people that did not talk about this, because they feared for their careers. They feared for their grants.”
This is also concerning. I wonder how many different scientific fields are experiencing something similar - people staying silent to receive grant money?
The fact that they have to say this to begin with is upsetting. I have come across posts of some unfortunate people who have experienced adverse effects from these vaccines, only to see replies accusing them of being "liars" and "far-righters" (even though their post isn't even political). I even recall a meme where they took a video of someone's vaccination side effects and put comedic music over it.
This isn't just exclusive to vaccines. As a person who knows several people who have suffered serious side effects from medical treatments, I have seen way too many incidents of "it's all in your head." and "we can't quantify it, so it's not there". The result? These people lose trust in the health care system.
Sometimes giving someone the benefit of the doubt can go a long way.
I strongly believe in capitalism - but I can't deny that some changes will need to be made soon in order for 99% of people to survive being outcompeted by robots.
And accepting the risk of severe heart problems is harder for many people. Especially young athletic individuals who have no prior medical conditions. Similarly, gaining weight also takes substantial time. No one wakes up obese after one fast food meal.
>"There are massive campaigns by the government encouraging people to become more fit."
My point is in regards to media campaigns during COVID for people to become fit. COVID and vaccination have been constantly been reported for the past couple of years. Unvaccinated people have been ridiculed by the media. If they put the same level of pressure on the obese during this pandemic, then perhaps they may have been more incentivized to lose weight.
> "The vast majority of experts said it's safe and the chances of side effects are extremely low."
The majority of experts said AstraZeneca was perfectly fine... until its authorization for young people got revoked in several nations. J&J was considered to be safe by experts... until millions of doses were tossed out after it was discovered that the manufacturing facility was contaminated. Then it was revoked for young people, since:
"In December, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended prioritizing the Moderna and Pfizer shots over J&J’s because of its safety issues. Previously U.S. officials had treated all three vaccines similarly because they’d each been shown to offer strong protection.
But follow-up studies have consistently shown lower effectiveness for J&J’s vaccine. And while the blood clots seen with J&J’s shot are rare, officials say they’re still occurring."
And this is the issue. The "experts" did not catch this before - The follow-up studies did. Also note that there has been substantial pressure on doctors during the pandemic (several told me that their license could potentially be revoked if they say anything that contradicts the medical board). Check out what Dr. Kerryn Phelps (former Australian Medical Association president) said.
> "if it was as easy as "put the cookie down" almost no one would be fat"
But it is as easy as that. All it takes is a few seconds of mental reasoning - is obesity worth the sugar rush? If the media reported on obesity in the same light as it covered COVID, then perhaps people would take it more seriously. (Are there campaigns for obesity? Sure. But none are as serious and "spooky" as those they did to make people scared of COVID and encourage them to get vaccinated)
> "Finally have some empathy for people in a difficult situation that has a difficult solution."
If not overeating is considered "difficult", then I'm not surprised why this nation is failing.
> 'Something like "what if someone is skiing and breaks a leg. That was an optional activity so shouldn't I be angry?" Not to argue with myself but skiing is entertainment which has value'
And many young, fit individuals declined the COVID vaccine because of the value this refusal has - no side effects from the vaccine. You may argue that COVID has more serious side effects. However, the first variants were not as transmissive as Omicron, and provided that you took social distancing + masking (with a respirator) very seriously, then your chances of getting it would be much less. In other words, the cons of vaccination must also be compared with the probability of actually getting COVID (based on the variant) in addition to the probability of a serious side effect occurring.
Again, the risk varies for everybody. If an over 50 year old obese person with prior medical conditions denied the vaccine, then you could definitely argue that their decision may not be the best. But for young healthy adults?
I strongly believe that everyone should do whatever they can to keep themselves and others safe. However, when it gets to accepting a rare but serious risk, that is where individuals must have a choice. I don't find anything wrong with restricting public venues to the vaccinated only (watching football is not a fundamental human right). But mandating it for employees and disallowing testing? That is concerning.
Also, I wanted to thank you for engaging with me in this discussion. While we have different opinions, I enjoy learning about other viewpoints and becoming more informed about them :)
A person who is obese willingly chose to gorge on lots of food. (Of course, there are a minority of individuals who have conditions like thyroid issues). A person who declined vaccination was most likely afraid of the side effects, which are rare but possible.
> Weight gain can have factors that are difficult to control like mental illness, self control issues
Mental illness? So a schizophrenic person magically gets obese? Self-control issues? People who can't put the cookie down? And a young athlete has to undergo a procedure with risk because the obese person can't say no to Taco Bell? These people were responsible for 78% of hospitalizations. Yet the media had basically no campaign to encourage them to lose weight. Note that they have had a significant impact on our health care system before COVID even began.
By your logic:
"I can't stop overeating" => "It's not your fault"
"I'm concerned about myocarditis" => "You're selfish!"
Even though I find their decision to be extremely selfish, I still hold sympathy for them. Only a sadist would find joy in seeing others suffer. Imagine if doctors laughed at their patients for having a preventable illness.
Likewise, I know there are people who refused to get vaccination for poor reasons - reasons that appear to be due to mental illness (e.g. schizophrenics who actually believe there are microchips in the vaccines).
> the amount of effort is extreme
And the amount of effort to become obese is extreme. No one becomes obese after one cookie.
> Those who didn't get vaccinated wanted to not be vaccinated
Did the obese make the responsible decision (to lose weight) to stop overwhelming our healthcare system?
Also, would you say that religions that prohibit a certain meat (e.g. pork for Muslims) are "anti-meat"? If I don't like tuna but like haddock, am I anti-fish?