Nice post (I agree with your arguments), but bad example. Firearms are responsible for murder. Rates of interpersonal violence are much higher in the UK than in the US (international data puts the US only slightly ahead of Canada in rates of interpersonal violence). However, the US has the highest homicide rate in the Western world because people in the US are much better at killing each other....because they have guns.
Originally Posted by Scrapper
You get angry with someone in the UK or Canada you have to rely on less effective means to vent your anger. In the US, you can vent your anger with firearms. So, yes, you CAN blame firearms for murder without a hint of intellectual laziness. Because firearms are the central factor explaining high homicide in the US vs other more violent western countries.
I know what you're going to say. Blah blah blah (insert gun debate stuff). I have no opinion about the gun debate in the US (I don't care....I live in Canada). But I do have a lot of info and data, and people need to get their facts in order.
Hijack over. I love sugar.
I have covered all of that here :
Originally Posted by McChaos
and i promise you, as long as the western world includes Mexico and South America, the US will never even be a contender.
To the topic at hand!
And blaming sugar for being fat is exactly the same tactic as blaming guns for murders. In both cases you put the responsibility for an individual's choice on an inanimate object. It even hold up under your reasoning. Ergo:
"Firearms are responsible for murder.." (Your quote)
Vs. (only changing two words)
"Sugars are responsible for fatties."
While both statements are somewhat defensible, neither infers any responsibility for the individual choice involved. For the conditions being discussed ("getting fat" or "getting shot"), both statements imply that the object is at fault, not the executor of the choice. My point (gun control silliness notwithstanding) stands, rhetorically speaking. ("rhetorically speaking!" Hah! I kill me.)
Your position appears to be the firearms are responsible for murders, but sugar is NOT responsible for fat people. You basically say that fatness is a choice, but homicides are solely determined by the presence of the gun.
Why are the murderers of the hook but the fatties on it?
Its even more similar to when ranch dressing was the douchebag of the month.
Originally Posted by Scrapper
This post just reminded me to walk to the water cooler in work and fill my 20oz Bubba Keg mug. (Cna I still be a hippy if I have a Bubba Keg?).
Originally Posted by Permalost
As soon as I cut out sugar I burned fat like butter.
Processed sugar is still a new thing and hasn't been around that long. Fruit sugar came seasonally and has the added benefits.
We're only supposed to have like 15g of sugar a day and that doesn't even include how most people drink like 5 32g sugar bottles of juice.
(I'm drinking pink lemonade right now)