While I was at work the other day they scheduled the former Miss. Arizona to come in to talk to us about eating healthy. She did her routine and told us about all the normal stuff that we often hear such as eating right and exercising and while she was doing that I had some common sense questions about what she was recommending.
These questions used simple reasoning to expose the false motives behind these people and the nature of the questions exposed a greater fault in society in that we do not use reason as the justification for our thoughts. The justification for our thoughts come from authoritative sources that we are not suppose to question thus short-cutting our own internal use of our intellect in favor of someone else's. This will be addressed later in the blog.
The first question I had was about the recommended amount of time we should exercise a weak which she said was about seventy-five minutes. While this sounded like the standard advice but why do we have to exercise when the job we had was already put our muscles to work. It seems pointless to require us to do additional exercise outside of work. It doesn't make any sense why exercise at work didn't count as the same beneficial exercise in gym when it is the same physical activity that any exercise program would put us through. The only difference is that we are not getting paid.
The second question was about the foods they seem to recommend. She said that fast food hamburgers should be eaten with a salad in order to counter the negative health affects of the hamburger. This clearly suggest that the badness of the hamburger is canceled out by the goodness of the salad. Its like people who order a diet coke with their fast food combo meals. It seems logical at first until we wonder what are the negative side affects of ordering a hamburger with no lettuce or tomato but took the lettuce, pickles, and tomato from the salad and put it on the hamburger? That would seem to be just as healthy as a hamburger with salad because we took bits of the salad and put it on the hamburger. The next logical assumption is to just order the hamburger with that stuff already on it. A hamburger with lettuce, tomato, pickles, mayonnaise (all things you might find in a salad) should be just as healthy as a hamburger with a salad. Wouldn't it be wonderful if they would sell hamburgers that way?
My third question was really a question about inconsistent demands about why would they want us to eat certain foods and engage in certain activities when we are already doing them. It almost seems as if they are proscribing a regiment for us to follow and using whatever it takes to get us to follow that regiment. We even see this in 'saving the planet' logic where eating fatty hamburgers causes global warming because cows either eat to many trees or annihilate the atmosphere with their flatulence. They even try to make the connection in their save the planet commercials by associating bad dietary choices with global warming so, in order to save the planet, we better eat right and exercise. Do you see the pattern?
What people don't realize is that progressives, fascist, and communist all wanted the people to be healthy and they were going to decide what methods were to be used to be healthy because they knew what was best. Hitler often paraded German youth as examples of a physically fit society and, while our own nanny-stater won't impose a dictatorship to make us be healthy (other than Obamacare) they are willing to manipulate us into doing these things. This is why they say exercise even though we already get exercise or to eat right when we are already eating much of the same things they already want us to eat. They have regiment for society to follow and they are willing to use any lie to get us to do it. Its all motivated by the 'we know what is best for you'.
The last part of this blog is about why people listen to the 'experts' over everything? Doesn't our own opinion over our own life count for anything anymore? It was simple reasoning that I used to theorize about a hidden motive behind the food police but simple reasoning is often criticized as being quote-unquote simple. It implies that good ideas are not simple and clear to the average person because the average person is to stupid to think of good ideas. They have convinced everyone that clear reasoning that is understandable can not be the correct solution since the source of the understanding is the average person and not ordained experts. They have proclaimed that the nature of expert opinions are such that its natural for you not to understand since you are their intellectual inferior. This makes it easier to tell you what to think since your own thought process is to simple and the nature of their logic is so complex for you to handle that it is natural for you not to understand their advance ideas. The proper thing for you to do is to just trust in what the experts say and don't question them.
This makes it easier for them to tell you what to do because you will not reject their opinion when it conflicts with your own. You will follow their advice, run their obstacle course, and comply with their wishes. Its sinister and you have fell for it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment