Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What You Can't Say (2004)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 308 posts

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#291

Post by nhangen »

existencebox wrote: post #216
nhangen wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People crave sugar, nicotine, narcotics, and other things that aren't good for them, so your argument falls apart there. You crave meat for a variety of psychological and physiological reasons, but not necessarily because you're missing something that meat provides. My argument for not eating meat is simple - why kill something for food if I don't have to?

So as I said above, there's a certain degree of actual feedback in terms of your body "Wanting" foods that contain proper nutrients, and while with a combination of multiple types of beans, supplements, and other foods you can approximate some of the proteins you'd be missing out on by not eating meat, it's both far more complicated (and until recently in my life, expensive), and as my initial statement about a lack…

With the exception of gym rats or those with a job that requires strenuous physical labor, the body doesn't require that much protein.

I've been a vegetarian for 15 years or so, and would question your statement that finding non-meat protein alternatives is complicated.

It sounds like you're trying to make an argument that not eating meat could have long-term health hazards, in which case I'd argue that it's easier to prove that meat is bad for you than it is to prove not-eating it is.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#292

Post by existencebox »

nhangen wrote: post #291
existencebox wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So as I said above, there's a certain degree of actual feedback in terms of your body "Wanting" foods that contain proper nutrients, and while with a combination of multiple types of beans, supplements, and other foods you can approximate some of the proteins you'd be missing out on by not eating meat, it's both far more complicated (and until recently in my life, expensive), and as my initial statement about a lack…

With the exception of gym rats or those with a job that requires strenuous physical labor, the body doesn't require that much protein. I've been a vegetarian for 15 years or so, and would question your statement that finding non-meat protein alternatives is complicated. It sounds like you're trying to make an argument that not eating meat could have long-term health hazards, in which case I'd argue that it's easier t…

I don't think I'd draw the line as high as "gym rats." I was brought up in a family with a vegan mother, and at home generally had to conform to that same diet. During university, I had a majorly carb based (very unhealthy as well) diet. Across all three, when I finally had the money to buy good quality meat on a regular basis (3-4 times a week), I not only felt FAR better, but my rather light workout regimen (2 sessions a day, 3 reps of 30 set's of a variety of free weight exercises), became FAR more effective. I put on ~10-20 pounds within a few short months, and found myself far more capable in terms of both performing and recovering from the rather simple physical tasks I do as a sysadmin (staying on my feet most of the day, racking rather heavy servers)

Now, this is all anecdotal, I was just addressing that my body responded in a way that suggested that I did "require" the protein.

With regards to the more formal argument, I'd word it more that you put yourself more "at risk" for certain health hazards by cutting ANY core part of the diet out. It's certainly easy to prove meat is "bad" but most of the studies I had seen involved excessive consumption, which defaults back to the general statement of "all things in moderation". Do you have references that show the former (negative effects) without the latter? (ineffective dietary balance).

To summarize, I'd agree if we're only talking in extremes, that it's very easy to show that meat is bad. So I'd qualify all my previous statements with "a well balanced diet"

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#293

Post by tunesmith »

arbitrarywords wrote: post #263
tunesmith wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That improperly restates my rebuttal. I'm not saying that Islam is never Muslim or vice versa. He's making the forall statement, not me. I'm saying that it's completely false that "The only way that Muslims can reasonably be said to exist as a group is in terms of their adherence to the doctrine of Islam". Trivially refuted since he's making a ∀ statement. You only have to find a ∃ to refute it. Google "cultural musl…

Well the impression I get is the idea of a "cultural" muslim is contested from both within and without the muslim community so I don't think it's quite that clear cut. Who gets to own the labels seems to always be a political battle. You could argue that it is only "reasonable" to use the label for those who hold the beliefs.

I'm not really sure if there's a term for the problem with this, but "moral hazard" may apply. If a determination is made to exclude all "cultural muslims" from the definition of muslim, then that determination is probably made by someone who is not a "cultural muslim", and the effects might really suck for the cultural muslims.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#294

Post by eli_gottlieb »

JackFr wrote: post #51
ChuckMcM wrote: post #14

I find that in engineering circles theology and the notion of the existence of God is one of those 'moral taboos.' And advocating more nuclear power stations or private gun ownership. It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room. But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century. Always interesting to think abo…

Forget God -- a belief in any transcendent property or existence or even a rejection of pure reductionism is typically greeted with a scowl and an argument which boils down to "Come on. . . . you really don't believe that."

I'm fairly sure there are professional philosophers who reject strong reductionism as a form of scientism. Don't ask me why, as I'm not trained in philosophy, and I'm told that computer people make utter dorks of ourselves when we try to talk about philosophy without training.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#295

Post by eli_gottlieb »

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #24
ChuckMcM wrote: post #14

I find that in engineering circles theology and the notion of the existence of God is one of those 'moral taboos.' And advocating more nuclear power stations or private gun ownership. It is fascinating that were you to advocate gun control in the late 19th century, it seems nearly everyone would have laughed you out of the room. But that sentiment has reversed here in the 21st century. Always interesting to think abo…

Here's another one that will incite HN: Personal ambition is overrated, and we're actually just buying into the lies of Western culture that we have to become the Ubermensch to be happy. I struggle with this.

>Personal ambition is overrated, and we're actually just buying into the lies of Western culture that we have to become the Ubermensch to be happy.

Completely agreed. In actual fact, most such people aren't even real ubermenschen.

They have no mission, no true values of their own that they will impose on the world. Their ambitions are not only the small beer of rising in wealth but the zero-sum nonsense of rising in social status. Their dreams are forever confined to the cage of the established capitalist system. What's another dollar?

Many so-called ambitious professionals are just more self-deceiving pigs in human clothing.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#296

Post by eli_gottlieb »

leoc wrote: post #162
wozniacki wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't help but intrude here. The point made in the italicized line [1] above is much much larger than the typically-trite debate over the consumption of mass media narratives. Reducing it to a talking point - about the power of mainstream media to silence skeptics - cheapens the vast and profound meaning embedded in it. This is not about doves vs hawks. This is much larger than that. That statement is not just abou…

The major problem is that everyone\* likes to believe that—while they, of course, are not perfect!—they are fundamentally , in the end of the day, a basically decent and good and rational person. Likewise that their friends and loved ones and co-workers are too. And that their lifestyle, and the society they live in, and the institutions they belong to and identify with are fundamentally okay as well, not out-of-cont…

>Even people who are rationally aware of some of this (often because they recite it once every week) are protected by powerful psychological defence mechanisms from actually having to confront the realisation very often.

No, some of us just have to hold back tears on a frequent basis.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#297

Post by gnaritas »

gfodor wrote: post #200
gnaritas wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are better ways to teach that than by showing them you're a liar. Telling them Santa is real is IMHO wrong; that's not a debatable point, that's my opinion. I don't support teaching delusions to kids whether it's Santa or God.

"Son, I'm sorry, but Santa isn't real. We just pretend he exists to make Christmas more fun. However, Jesus, the dude who came from the Sky Wizard and rose from the dead and tells us about heaven, we actually celebrate Christmas for him and he's totally real." The juxtaposition of the Santa and Jesus myths has always baffled me. It is truly a spectacular example of the mental hoops people will go to get past their fe…

I'm an atheist, it's all non-sense as far as I'm concerned, I don't pretend anything.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#298

Post by gnaritas »

icebraining wrote: post #215
gnaritas wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are better ways to teach that than by showing them you're a liar. Telling them Santa is real is IMHO wrong; that's not a debatable point, that's my opinion. I don't support teaching delusions to kids whether it's Santa or God.

There are better ways to teach that than by showing them you're a liar. Why? There were going to find out anyway.

Excuse me?

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#299

Post by gnaritas »

jules wrote: post #182
gnaritas wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are better ways to teach that than by showing them you're a liar. Telling them Santa is real is IMHO wrong; that's not a debatable point, that's my opinion. I don't support teaching delusions to kids whether it's Santa or God.

What are those better ways?

Start with honesty, that's a pretty good one. Don't mentally abuse your child with delusions, that's a pretty good one too.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#300

Post by MatthiasP »

dbbolton wrote: post #179

>It could be that the scientists are simply smarter; most physicists could, if necessary, make it through a PhD program in French literature, but few professors of French literature could make it through a PhD program in physics. I think this is a pretty unfair generalization, and furthers the stereotype that STEM majors are smarter/harder-working/generally better than liberal arts majors. It is not inconceivable to…

Academic success is based on hard work, intelligence and to know exactly what not to say.
Post reply on HN