I'd never encountered anyone like that in real life, but they show up over and over again on any discussion of these drugs. It's very strange to me.
I'd never encountered anyone like that in real life, but they show up over and over again on any discussion of these drugs. It's very strange to me.
And so, aside from a rare treat, which mostly leaves me sad (because I only get to eat two), I eat things that aren't ultra-processed 5G seed oil based. And my weight remains controlled despite said 5G vaccines, seed oils, and gut flora disruption.
Ozympic seems like a net good if it helps people control their weight. It just always seems preposterous when people blame "ultra-processed food" as the root problem, rather than the over consumption of said food as the problem.
No, it doesn't. There's no fixed national budget for weight loss. There's also not perverse incentives that come with subsidizing supply. It's not an economic question.
If you lose weight on Ozempic, there is no evidence that someone else needs to assume the weight you lost, so it is not clear where you find a parallel.
The "I had to work hard to pay my student loan, and now I have to work hard to pay yours too?" sentiment is much more common and I could see that show up here, but it is not a parallel. That's a very different idea that has no parallel. I don't have to work off the weight you lost.
"being against student loan debt forgiveness because one had to pay off one's own loans"
> but that is not a sentiment that is common enough to speak of
It crops up every time the issue is discussed online. On places like Twitter, at least.
> I don't have to work off the weight you lost.
Again, this blend of envy, spite, and petty injustice crops up quite often. "Why did I have to exercise when they could afford a gastric bypass?"
You seem unfamiliar with how petty people can be online. There are plenty of people who get personally aggrieved when they think someone got a free lunch / might get a free lunch even when the lunch isn't paid by them / they were unfortunate enough to miss out on free lunch day.
> that is not a sentiment that is common enough to speak of
Sure it is.
Only when it pertains to government forgiveness, because of the bag holding problem.
Nobody cares when it is an unrelated entity that is willing to become the bag holder (e.g. parents). In fact, it has become almost expected that entities like parents will become the bag holders when it comes to college debt.
The bag holding problem is something quite different, not a parallel.
> "Why did I have to exercise when they could afford a bypass?"
So it crops up quite often, but only when it comes to weight loss-related matters?
Do you know what class envy is
Regardless, I've never heard a "self-made" rich person complain "I had to work hard to get here. Why oh why wasn't I born rich like that Saudi prince?". They seem to only ever be proud that they were able to become rich. Again, I suppose it has probably happened once, but does not seem common enough to speak of.
https://x.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1562461372851847168
Senator Chuck Grassley: "For our government just to say ok your debt is completely forgiven.. it’s completely unfair"
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1562530929838436355
Reporter question during the announcement: "Mr. President, is this unfair to people who paid their student loans or chose not to take out loans?"
https://www.c-span.org/video/?522478-1/president-biden-remar...
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/already-paid-off-student-loan...
Let's face it: The question is unanswerable as there is no parallel and there never was.
Your never ending quest to try and find that which does not exist is commendable, and hilarious, but to think that it is answering some kind of question is nonsensical.
> Student loan forgiveness rewards bad decision making
I took out a $160,000 student load a decade ago
I saved every penny I made to pay it back in full. I ended up paying over $300,000 on the loan
Now I'm getting punished because I was too responsible and paid back my loan too quickly?
I lived in a $500 a month rat and cockroach infested sun room in Boston for years to pay back this debt
If I would have instead ignored my debt and bought cars and useless luxury items I'd get a free $300,000 check?
I'm as a-political as it gets. I hate all politicians. But this is insanity and rewards the WORST behavior
https://x.com/AlexFinnX/status/1793732427325620625
You seem to disbelieve such a narrative exists.
It has been said over and over that it no doubt has happened, but is not common enough that anyone here would speak to it. Digging deep into the depths of what HN largely considers a trolling website to find some random nobody has ever heard of once saying what you want to hear is not indicative of anything.
I'm surprised you don't take your comedy show on the road. People would pay good money for the laughs you've brought us.
But I don't care about whether or not people on HN would talk about it. I'm saying that it exists. Ultimately it is a moral judgment about personal responsibility. You find it in attacks on "welfare queens" similarly. Yes, of course there is always the element of being an aggrieved taxpayer. But there is also the vague cosmic - puritanism? - critique of "why should they have it easy when I had it hard?" I'm glad that you uphold HN as a place that is above such sentiment. But here I agree with you! I do not take such critiques seriously. Yet they abound, and they are a clear parallel to people attacking Ozempic because they find it "too easy" for becoming or staying thin. And so, we come full circle.
> not indicative of anything.
This entire sub-discussion is about fallacious arguments, and it is a fallacious argument that I am saying it exists. Therefore it is entirely germane for me to bring up a trolling website to find an argument used by a random nobody, as it proves the existence of a narrative. Perhaps you may quibble that it is not a narrative that exists in abundance. Then we are simply arguing preponderance, because I have already established existence.
You certainly don't have to care, but that is the discussion taking place. It is a necessary precondition for this supposed parallel to exist.
If you're trying to tell us that you can't focus and are flailing around like one of those whacky blow up thingys down at the used car lot, have fun with that. It no doubt goes well with your comedy show.
> This entire sub-discussion is about fallacious arguments
Oh, I see, so you really are unable to focus. I get why you appear to be so confused now. It is not so much that you're confused in what you write, but that you're off in your own world. Well, that's pretty funny, at least.
The original post I was responding to was about people who get upset about Ozempic who "show up over and over again on any discussion of these drugs." Maybe the poster did include HN as a place of those discussions, but I interpreted it as in general, in other internet spaces and in meatspace.
I then posted a similar fallacious argument that I felt paralleled it because ultimately they're both arguments out of a perceived lack of personal responsibility being "rewarded" by a quick fix.
You chose to introduce logic and reason by arguing that opposition to student loan debt forgiveness is motivated by the complainers becoming bag-holders. I agree that might be a (strong) motivation, but it is not the only one, because many people become busybodies when it comes to attacking others' personal (ir)responsibility when those others receive a windfall. "Taking the easy way out."
This subthread might have been a meandering road, but we have arrived right at where we started, with you bizarrely attacking a critique that I do not believe in, out of sheer pedantry perhaps.
Now, are you going to attempt a defense, a refutation, or whatever, or continue to hurl insults that both flout the guidelines of this forum and only serve to demean yourself?
How many people tell you their deepest asshole feelings right off the bat? They feel you out of you're in the same hate canoe and then they let loose. Doesn't mean they are not there.
Think about it.
These drugs are a god-send for me, because I am no longer constantly thinking about food all the fucking time, and I can easily eat normal people portions without having to burn huge amounts of self control on it.
The idea that the drugs are not "fair" is very strange thinking.
Then again I also know people who'd happily deny stimulant medication to people with ADHD, because "it's not fair".
Crabs in a bucket, I'd say. It doesn't help that in general, our culture still operates on the assumption that being fat is one's own fault and entirely under control of an average person, except for "legitimate medical excuses" like type 1 diabetes, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. We've made progress on getting rid of such notions in case of depression, autism and ADHD, so maybe we'll do that with obesity too, in some distant future. Until then, people on Ozempic will hear plenty of "that's not fair", and "if you were a better person, you wouldn't need this".
EDIT: Maybe we'll get obesity to be seen more like smoking: something that's easy to walk into, but beyond average person's ability to walk out of without help.
It reveals that for some trim people, their underlying feelings all along have been a sense of personal value and positivity around the fact that they are trim and others fat.
They feel unhappy that other might be admitted to the trim club.
Do you know that they were _always_ slim?
> Crabs in a bucket
My attitude has nothing to do with your consumption. I have a negative opinion of the drug. I don't have a negative opinion of people who feel desperate enough to use it.
I mean, turn your thinking around, why is being thin so important to them that they would take a very powerful class of drug just to achieve it? Why then would they waste a minute of their time afterwards being worried about external opinions of how they achieved it?
What's actually important here? Their health and appearance or the opinions of their peers? Are they altering their appearance solely for the opinion of their peers?
> and "if you were a better person, you wouldn't need this".
I think you've accidentally encoded that precise understanding here.
These drugs don't work without 'classical methods' such as caloric restriction.
> There has always been a way out of obesity, it's just that people does not want to take it.
Common trope, and absolute nonsense. It is the rare person who has been obese for most or all of their lives and prefers it that way or has never thought about or done anything to try and fix it. That is not how people show up at doctor's offices to ask about Ozempic. They show up in tears, at the end of their rope, or having completely given up.
Should we not help them just because you think it's "unfair" that you were genetically more gifted than they, perhaps? I doubt you'd agree with that.
>Please reserve your moral judgments.
This thread seems needlessly heated. How is it a moral judgement to say that some folks don't put in the effort to control calorie input? Losing weight sucks. It's worse the bigger you are. But they're not gaining weight by magic. They're consuming more calories than they burn. It is as simple as that (yes, yes, yes -- gut flora, metabolism disruption, vernal equinox, micro-plastics, etc. etc. There are plenty of variables that change the efficiency of the mechanism, but none that override the core mechanism.)
fwiw, Ozympic sounds great to me if people want to take it. Also great if they don't.
The implication that anyone reading it walks away with is "... and it is because they don't care enough to try and/or are lazy." If that wasn't your intent, cool, but that is most often the implication.
My only point is that most folks who "don't put in the effort" have put in the effort, and have failed. Multiple times, over and over again.
Sure, some lazy folks exist. It is a tiny minority of those who are obese, though, most of whom have given up because they had tried and failed countless times, or have simply accepted that there is no hope for them (cue tears and depression).
Because of the many failures, I was pretty convinced that what you say is true and no matter what I do I cannot lose weight.
Nevertheless, eventually I have made one more attempt, which was successful, so after about ten months I have reached a weight of only 2/3 of the weight that I had previously.
Then, after learning thus how to control my weight, I have kept it constant for more than a decade, until today. Losing weight was a rather unpleasant experience, especially in the beginning, but then the improvements in my quality of life have been so noticeable that the effort has certainly been worthwhile.
Looking back at time when I was obese, I regret a lot that I did not lose weight earlier and I consider that my failed attempts of losing weight had been quite stupid, because I should have realized that I am not doing all that is necessary for success.
The final attempt that was successful started with a way to measure accurately my changes in weight from a day to another, to determine the effect of the changes in diet, and it required a complete change both in what I was eating and in how I was eating.
Now it is very obvious for me why all my early attempts were not successful, because they were doomed from the start, since I was not doing them in the right way. However at that time, I was not aware of this and I did not think enough about the manner in which I should handle this problem.
After my own experience, I find it very hard to believe in the theories that for many or most obese people there are objective reasons for them to be obese instead of the fact that they have just never been taught what to eat and how to eat in order to preserve their health (in a detailed, practical way, not with generalities like "do not eat too much").
Both my grandfather and my father had been obese and they both had diabetes in old age, so I certainly did not have any help from genetic inheritance. It is enough for me to eat during a single day like I was eating when I was obese, to gain enough weight that I would need at least a week to lose it again.
The only thing with which I agree is that for poor people who are obese it is extremely difficult to lose weight, because all their time is occupied with ensuring their subsistence, so it is hard for them to reserve time for things like cooking at home, learning about how to compose a healthy diet, doing some physical exercises and so on.
For many people, it is simply a lot easier to lose and maintain weight, even if it doesn’t feel that way at the time. If we were to perform the same actions, in the same way, my body may simply have a predilection to maintaining a higher weight. (This is a real phenomenon, bodies have “set weights,” this is how stalls happen, etc.)
Is it impossible? No, of course not. But is it much much harder for some than others? Absolutely.
Yes, if anyone eats fewer calories than they expend they will lose weight. That is how thermodynamics works.
But the level of difficulty with which that can happen varies greatly.
Obviously during all the time when I was losing weight and even some time after that I was feeling hungry all the time, so I had to make some efforts to not eat beyond what I had planned. Nevertheless, if you work or do anything else that occupies your attention, the feeling of hunger disappears for some time, even if it reappears after some hours.
So having to cope with hunger is unavoidable for this goal. However, eventually my body became accustomed with a much lower food intake and the hunger disappeared. Now, when I eat food that I cook myself, I may not eat again for an entire day without becoming hungry. I have experimented and I have eaten again some industrially-produced food, like I was eating in the past, and with that I have become hungry just a couple of hours after eating it, exactly like before losing weight, so I believe that switching to self cooking is also a necessary condition for avoiding hunger when eating little.
As for hunger - you’re right. I was able to curb hunger simply by eating better. But I was never able to curb the “food noise” that was constantly in my head in a sustainable way.
Moreover, my body does really attempt to retain weight. Unless I’m absolutely perfect, I will gain weight fast and take it off extremely slowly. That is now how everybody’s body works. Many people struggle to put on weight. That is not the case for me.
I do not disagree that lifestyle changes matter, and that Ozempic is not sustainable without them.
No scientific basis in this whatsoever.
> It is the rare person who has been obese for most or all of their lives and prefers it that way or has never thought about or done anything to try and fix it. That is not how people show up at doctor's offices to ask about Ozempic. They show up in tears, at the end of their rope, or having completely given up.
If this was the case, there would have been no drug shortage. Instead, everyone is showing up asking for it because it's the easiest way out. No diet, no effort, nothing. Just take the pill or do the shot, boom. I wonder if you are being serious or just so much deluded. There is no drugging out of thermodynamics.
There was a drug shortage because the media ran away with the story and the pharmaceuticals were unprepared.
That very drug shortage hurt both people with obesity and people with Type 2 Diabetes.
My source is first hand experience. What’s yours? Bias and assumption, or moral judgment?
Please, point them all out.
> Who cares if it no longer requires effort to be skinny? Why should it require effort to be skinny? And why do you care either way?
I don't, why do you care if people say weight loss drug users take the easy way out?