Stop saying "Everything in Moderation".

[Bluegoat]

Yeah, I know the origins, that's partly why it burns. Because it is considered a fundamental philosophical truth, to some people. It gives a lot of weight to a viewpoint which I find somewhat specious.

 

Are you burned in general when people believe different things than you do, or when they think there are in fact fundamental truthes?  Because if you do, that might be why people end up saying this to you.

 

I think there is something fundamentally true about this perspective - from my philosophical position, human beings are creatures that include both a body and a soul, or form and matter if you like, and it is inaccurate and generally detrimental to ignore either part of that whole.  Abstract reason cannot be separated effectivly from the material reality, and also fleshly, naturalistic reality cannot be understood seperatly from reason. 

 

And that holds true in terms of right action and ethical and even practical concerns about how to live a good life.

 

I'm sorry if you find that specious, but I think it's pretty unreasonable for you to expect others to take your philosophical positions of things like vegetarianism seriously when you are dismissive of their viewpoints.

Edited October 24, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Hyacinth]

I could eat everything in sight.

This purse is so big, I can fit everything but the kitchen sink in it.

Everything is falling apart.

Everything is beautiful.

Everything is coming up roses.

Is everything okay?

Hold everything!

Drop everything and come see this!

 

Do these bother you, Poppy? Is it the word everything that triggers you, or is it the way its being used in relationship to food? Or something else?

[hornblower]

OK so you believe that people who prefer to be moderate are wrong?

 

Not op, but yeah, I think it's very frequently wrong.

[Epicurean]

OK so you believe that people who prefer to be moderate are wrong?

What does that actually mean though? One man's moderate is another man's extreme or rigid. It's a moving goalpost that's totally dependent on the person.

[eternalsummer]

OK so you believe that people who prefer to be moderate are wrong?

Again, they don't prefer to be moderate with everything, or even with things that their moderate ancestors preferred to be moderate with (and they now prefer moderation with things their ancestors would have considered as unacceptable as we consider heroin, or rape, or whatever)

[SKL]

What does that actually mean though? One man's moderate is another man's extreme or rigid. It's a moving goalpost that's totally dependent on the person.

 

I'm not sure how Poppy meant what she said, what I meant was, are people who allow themselves a range within which to operate "wrong"?  Or in other words, is "all or nothing" better in general?

 

For example, do I need to set very strict diet requirements for myself, or is it OK to be within a range, i.e., one day eat a little more fat/starch and another day a little less?  Is drinking alcohol for enjoyment but not to the point of stupidity OK?  How about exercising to feel good but not to the "no pain no gain" extreme?  Is it OK to watch a couple hours of TV/DVD on weekends or do we need to go "screen free" for our well-being?

 

I used to go to the extreme on a number of things (for my own self, not judging anyone else).  It had an effect, but my older and wiser self says that for the long term, it's often better to make a life change that still leaves us within a "moderate" range.

 

I also used to be very picky about how I fed my kids.  All the while I kept remembering how I ate as a kid - not nearly so well - and how healthy I was anyway.  I have significantly moderated the choices I make for my kids.

 

I can speak from life experience that this works better for me and most people I know.  Obviously there are exceptions.

[poppy]

I'm not sure how Poppy meant what she said, what I meant was, are people who allow themselves a range within which to operate "wrong"?  Or in other words, is "all or nothing" better in general?

 

For example, do I need to set very strict diet requirements for myself, or is it OK to be within a range, i.e., one day eat a little more fat/starch and another day a little less?  Is drinking alcohol for enjoyment but not to the point of stupidity OK?  How about exercising to feel good but not to the "no pain no gain" extreme?  Is it OK to watch a couple hours of TV/DVD on weekends or do we need to go "screen free" for our well-being?

 

I used to go to the extreme on a number of things (for my own self, not judging anyone else).  It had an effect, but my older and wiser self says that for the long term, it's often better to make a life change that still leaves us within a "moderate" range.

 

I also used to be very picky about how I fed my kids.  All the while I kept remembering how I ate as a kid - not nearly so well - and how healthy I was anyway.  I have significantly moderated the choices I make for my kids.

 

I can speak from life experience that this works better for me and most people I know.  Obviously there are exceptions.

 

I didn't say "everything in moderation" is wrong, I said it is specious. It means absolutely nothing. Or rather is means anything. It means whatever you want it to mean. Everyone allows themselves a range in which to operate.