Dieting yoyo

I hate it but I have become convinced that you weigh what your destiny says you will weigh and trying to lose weight through will power and drugs creates a yo-yo and you put it back on with a little extra.  Exercise is good but only leads to a fit fat person, not bad but not good either.  Trying to diet permanently is like trying to hold your breath permanently, and changing your diet to healthy foods, while good for other reasons, only causes you to eat more to get the same calories.

Maxim about Wasabi mustard

Sometimes I (and probably most people) think of sentences that are "quotable."  I think when this happens to me I will from now on post them.

OK here goes:

There are many things where a little is good and more is horrible -- such as Wasabi mustard or anchovies or salt.

Burden of Proof

In the last post on witches and a few other times I have referred to the concept of "burden of proof."

This is the idea that if one asserts something (say being a witch or that the Buddha existed as an actual figure with all the miraculous things that happened), which is both important and hard to believe, then one must provide what is called "extraordinary proof."

This burden is in fact so great that pretty much nothing is enough.  Testimony is useless, as are historical documents and even experimental demonstration.

Of course people don't like this burden -- they want to believe what they want to believe, and some are such that if they have seen something they will believe it without doubt, even when many possible explanations are available.

Of course at issue is always the question of whether or not something is "hard to believe," since for some many things are quite easy to believe, mainly because they were brought up believing it.

Things at the frontier of science make a good example.  The debate about whether too little salt is possible, and the assertion that the Heart Association's recommendation is too little comes to my mind.  To me that is fairly easy to accept.  We need some salt to survive, so it stands to reason too little would be harmful, and the best evidence as I see it is that only some people really need worry about getting too much (although this is still undecided), so a minimum seems logical.

I hasten to insert here that we know too much salt is harmful. 

What I suspect has happened is that the scientists at the Heart Association have locked them into the belief in the evil of salt (subconsciously of course), and to them the burden of proving otherwise is extraordinary.  To me it is not.

Sometimes some scientific result is announced, calling for a reversal of some otherwise well established part of the scientific edifice.  People who make such announcements (and the journalists who eagerly broadcast the claim) properly come under heavy criticism for making such things a press event when they have not met the burden of proof and in fact can't (such a thing requires independent confirmations out the wazoo).

There are some claims that no amount of evidence would suffice short of hard physical specimens that are such that all sorts of experts can pour over.   Perhaps ghosts, rebirths (reincarnation), miracles, angels, witches, demons, alien visitors (the interstellar kind), Sasquatch and similar animals and beasts all fall into that category.  They are all hard to believe and easily contested, and would require evidence that goes beyond anything available.

The main point is that the default has to be disbelief -- not so much rejection or ridicule but just not believing or even thinking it might be true -- without evidence that meets the high burden of proof.

Why can't we just "choose to believe?"  After all it is not possible to disprove such claims (most of the time -- sometimes the evidence against the claim is massive).  The thing is, there is no reason to accept such things, so such "choice" isn't really a choice but just wishful thinking and being irrational and even irresponsible.

Such intellectual dishonesty may even be immoral -- I don't know that lying to oneself is a moral offense or not -- I can see a case for either position.  Certainly pushing it or preaching it to others is immoral. 

Witches

Since I seem to get more attention with witches as my topic than my usual stuff, let me talk about them and see what reactions it brings.

The idea that there are people with special "magical" powers or that such a thing can be learned, is not demonstrable and I think almost certainly fantasy.  That said, what are we to think about people who think they are witches or who fear them or whatever?

The Bible says one must kill any witch.  So I guess the Bible disagrees with me on this.  I think though that the Bible is not just in error here, but, even if witches were real, they should not be killed.  The Bible here is morally wrong.

More than likely someone who thinks they are a witch is just mixed up some way, and killing such people is wrong.  So, also, of course, is killing people thought to be witches, no matter how eccentric they may be.  This sort of thing is as morally corrupt as it gets.  No matter how sure one may be that someone is a witch, the burden of proof for such an idea exceeds anything that might be produced.  Some things are just like that.

This doesn't of course mean that the state shouldn't execute murderers, and shouldn't jail people committing other crimes, including I would think saying one is a witch to extort or commit fraud.  It is, though, the murder or extortion or fraud that is prosecuted, not the witchcraft.

Besides, it seems likely, if there are witches, they could be doing good rather than evil.

 

Russians in Ukraine

I must say I have a real problem with Russia thinking it has the right to meddle in other countries to "protect" the rights of Russian nationals there.

That was the excuse Hitler used to seize Czechoslovakia, and it was no more valid then than now.  A nation should act as much as possible to protect overseas citizens and nationals, but not nationals of another country, no matter what the cultural links.  The only exception is when human rights are involved, and then it should be without regard to the ethnicity or culture of those being persecuted.

Actually this is nationalism, and the citizens and nationals of any country owe their allegiance to the nation they are part of, not any other country, and so the rebels in Ukraine should be seen as really simply traitors putting ethnicity ahead of nation.  When ethnic groups fail to realize this they bring discrimination and persecution down on their heads, and should not be given foreign assistance.

Reviewing the blogs I've posted, it seems there is a theme - what is right and what is wrong - ethics.  I haven't delved much into the formal ethics taught in college of Socrates and Kant and others, although I think it is good that people study these thinkers.  I've just kind-of applied a mix of Western philosophy and Buddhist ethical thought, in a personal way coming down to where I think one should be and then explaining and defending that.

There are and will of course be blogs on other topics, but in the end I notice that they seem to almost always come down to our doing what is right.  I think life is mostly about that, and for sure happiness is.  (Oh, following traditional rules, even though they are presented as ethical rules, often causes unhappiness, but this is because (at least in the given situation) they are wrong and in our hearts if we are sensitive we know it).

So I'm going to change the title of this blog to something more specific and point out the general thrust.

Contradicting myself

It has been brought to my attention that I appear to contradict myself (horrors!).  In one blog I state the maxim that one should eat whatever one is served when one is a guest.  In the other I say that I usually carefully pick out the curdled blood when it is in my noodles or soup or whatever.

Well, in the latter case I had in mind in a restaurant.  When one is paying for the meal one is not a guest.  That said it is not good to make an issue of such things anywhere.

But really the criticism of this contradiction misses the point that I think is a thread throughout this blog -- that rules or laws or maxims of an ethical nature are guides, but we must always be willing to abandon them if it leads to our doing something wrong.

This takes judgment and compassion, and for the most part the feelings of our host are paramount.  When it comes to something clearly unhealthy (as opposed to meat which is plainly not unhealthy as so many thrive with it in their diets), one would still not say anything and try to be surreptitious.  At least that is where I come down on this.  I must say that I would rather eat the blood than hurt my host, and I think this is where I come down, although of course others may think otherwise.

It is OK to avoid things for no reason other than that you find them repulsive.  One often should try to get over and control one's revulsions, but if something makes one unhappy, then by all means avoid it.  It's just that in the end we are better off not having to avoid things.

My main point though is that if one is a vegetarian one need to not let this be known.  It is praying in public and people don't like it and are often offended. 

Eating blood -- if one eats meat, why not?  As a westerner I have a cultural problem and can't bring myself to do anything but carefully pick out the bits of blood in my noodles or whatever and set them aside, although of course I say nothing.

One should not eat blood for the same reason one should avoid organ meats -- the iron and metallic load is too great (and other reasons -- this is not a medical blog so research it yourself).

However many religions prohibit blood consumption on its own for superstitious reasons -- it seems the precursors of modern Jews thought the soul was in the blood, or some such thing, and this got passed to Christians and Muslims, so that in most countries there are special laws regarding the draining of blood from slaughtered animals.  The Muslims appear to have taken this way to far and demand slaughter methods that are barbaric and cruel.

Of course common sense tells us that even after draining the blood there will remain a lot of it in the meat.  I don't know how the religions who make a big deal of this rationalize this simple fact.

I read in the Bible's Book of Acts that the apostles lifted most of the Jewish dietary laws from Christians (to ease the conversion of Gentiles) but did leave the "abstain from blood" in there.

So now we have at least one Christian group, Jehovah's Witnesses, who expel members who have a transfusion or allow one for their children to save the child's life, and insist the child be allowed to die.

Even if there were an ethical reason for not eating blood, and I can see no rational justification -- just authority and superstition -- this reflects a horrible and tragic and, indeed, evil, application of ethics.  When presented with a choice of two wrongs, one must choose the lesser -- and a child dying versus a blood transfusion -- sheesh! -- obviously breaks that fundamental rule.  

Eating meat

Something I've wanted to post about for awhile is the need for mankind to get off meat, or at least drastically reduce what we eat.

Of course there are ethical reasons -- meat is from sentient animals and although a case can be made that such animals might actually have better lives (and a good deal better karma if one sees this as valid -- and of course at a loss of karma for humans involved), the reality is probably that they lead lives of suffering, considering how many of those who raise animals for slaughter treat them.

But there are three other reasons.  There is the environment, our health, and cost.  The burden on the environment of ever-increasing animal husbandry offsets much that the world does to slow climate change, and those who make personal sacrifices for the environment but continue to demand meat are being hugely inconsistent.  Also of course red meat is well known to contribute to modern diseases and suffering.  Finally, leave the meat out and the food budget gets much lower, leaving money for other pleasures or charity.

I don't think it would be a good thing to completely eliminate meat, since it does add certain nutrients difficult to get otherwise, and it is very pleasurable.  The pleasure however can be gotten by keeping its use down as a sort-of condiment rather than a main dish and experimenting with meat substitutes.

If one does decide to leave meat out of one's diet, one should remember the maxim that, when a guest, eat what is served, and not fuss or cause one's host to even be aware.  The amount of rudeness and arrogance sometimes seen in vegetarians is unfortunate and counterproductive.

Putin says he could take Kiev in two weeks.  Probably true but arrogant and, of course, taking it would be only the beginning.  The Ukrainians will not just fold with the fall of a city.

We seem to have a fascist on our hands.  The world, and especially Europe, would do well to pay close attention.  After what Russia has been through, this isn't too surprising, and nationalism is an easy enough way of thinking for those who are so inclined.  I doubt most Russians would buy what is going on if the actually knew the details.

Wolves at the door

Democracies (countries run by popularly elected politicians) tend to not pay much attention to wolves until they are at the door.  There is instead a constant cry that the democracy causes the presence of wolves and that military spending in particular is (always, no matter how small) excessive.

The reason is mainly because wolves often self-destruct, and besides it interferes with re-election.  The public does not like to make sacrifices to protect itself.

I read a nice piece in Huffington yesterday about the history of Wahhabism in Saudi.  It seems terror and brutality have been a core part of not just that part of Islam but part of Islam in general through its existence -- that killing and raping the non-believer is not only acceptable behavior but is commanded.  (I add that Islam is not unique in this respect).

As a tactic, up to maybe the end of the nineteenth century, it usually was successful.  People will and generally should submit to preserve themselves and their families.  Alexander the Great was generous to cities that surrendered without a fight and engaged in general slaughter and rape and enslavement and looting when there was resistance.  It worked and he was able to take Asia Minor with only a few real sieges.

I don't think it works at all in today's world.  What it does is alert democratic politicians and the public to the presence of a wolf.  The wolf needs to wait until its power is too great for the democracy to resist, and, until then, play ball, for the most part -- as the Chinese seem to be doing.

Politicians like Obama and the Clintons love to save money by weakening the country's military, so they can buy votes with social programs.  (I don't know that it is as crass as that -- maybe they think they are doing the right thing -- hard to understand though.)

Of course if one spends really excessive amounts on the military, one can weaken the domestic economy, and this ain't good either -- and ends up reducing the amount available.  In the States, though, the weak economy is from other causes.

The Muslim terrorist and extremist groups think the old brutality and fear tactic still works.  That was behind 9-11, which only served to give Bush the chance to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, although what he achieved has now been frittered away.  At least for a couple of years the public understood the danger, but they don't like sacrifices and want them to stop.  A couple of years is about all a determined leader has before the clamor forces compromise with evil.

Now ISIS, or whatever it will be called, is doing as much, telling the world the wolf is at the door.  If they had pulled their uprising and then been civilized about it, instead of going on a murder spree, the world would have seen it and not liked it, but have done nothing.  As it is Obama is being dragged into doing something (it seems as little as possible) by his own public.

In other words, terrorism today is stupid.  It achieves very little if anything except alert the world to your evil.

 

Russian feet in the door

I appreciate the email last night the explained how Russia had promised to honor Ukraine's sovereignty in return for Ukraine handing over its nuclear weapons.

It would seem once the Russians got that danger out of the way they had no intention of keeping their side of it.  They just needed to wait a decent interval and for something to take place that gave them an excuse.  (I also note an unsettling tendency of Russian authorities here and there casually mentioning that Russia still has nuclear weapons -- lots of them).

Russia seems to be in the business of setting up small enclaves out of parts of former USSR republics.  It has done it in Moldova and Georgia and now apparently will in Ukraine.  They find an area where, because of Stalin's brutality, Russian ethnics predominate, and force the creation there of a separate political entity, controlled, however, by Russia.  These are basically criminal regimes run by criminals with no legitimacy or international legality.

There is a temptation to think the locals should be allowed to make the decision, but this cannot be allowed unless the sovereign country agrees to it (as with Czechoslovakia).  Otherwise the world will end up with no end of ethnic groups and sub-groups, majority or not, clamoring for independence.  One can imagine the Navajo setting up their own state in the U.S. Southwest.  A state, once legally constituted, can decide for itself whether it wants to divide itself up or not, but this cannot be imposed from outside and inhabitants who try to do this on their own can and should be suppressed.  (Of course here in the case of Ukraine they were being suppressed -- we have instead a foreign invasion -- come to think of it, that is what happened in Georgia too).

When one either moves or otherwise comes to be a citizen of another country, it is incumbent on that person to give up their loyalty to the mother country and be patriotic, loyal citizens of the new country.  That doesn't require giving up one's culture, at least right away (it usually happens naturally after a few generations).  People who do not do this but stick to loyalty to a foreign state set themselves up to become traitors.

Still, these enclaves present to Russia an excellent foot in the door for eventually gaining back its empire, although of course now it won't be Communist but more Fascist in nature.

Pious fraud

One of the things one has to be attuned to as a skeptic (a person from Missouri) is the phenomenon of "pious fraud."

In its classic form it consists of creating evidence or distorting evidence or lying in order to win converts to a religion.  The idea is that saving the soul is more important than little details like honesty.

I remember seeing a brochure from a fundamentalist group listing all the prophesies of the Old Testament that were fulfilled by Jesus.  Thing is it is all a pious fraud.  None of the points exactly point to Jesus and most of them were not even prophesies, and the details of the Jesus story was manipulated to fit.

This doesn't just apply to religion.  People who have a conspiracy theory are notorious for this.  So are people who support one of the countless pseudo-sciences or bizarre phenomena we hear tell of.

I think in fact this is the main reason personal testimony is not credible, on its own.  Supporting evidence may be credible, but even then the personal testimony counts for nothing (it is possible to commit pious fraud in favor of something that is in fact true).

So when someone tells me this or that based on testimony or their own experience, I may be polite and not say what I think, but I'm thinking, "It's more likely that you lie."

Nationalism is exceeded only by ideology and religion in irrational perversity and the people it can kill and the lives it can ruin, and only by a little bit.  Partisanship is only a tad behind.

East Ukraine

I begin to think Russia will first set up an East Ukraine rather than emulating Hitler and using nationalism to occupy the whole country.  That is good, but of course it means a hostile Ukraine (much more hostile now) will remain on its western border, so we will see.

Still, this East Ukraine, populated mostly by ethnic Russians, will be subservient, and probably quickly invite the presence of full-time Russian soldiers.

That would mean being, legally at least, an independent country, which has the small benefit of giving Russia another vote everywhere, but otherwise means nothing and can be undone any time with a simple annexation vote.  There is a dollop of hypocrisy here -- Putin can pull back and say he didn't invade and didn't annex, while in fact of course he effectively did.

It is, however, now probably the best possible solution, considering the rabid Russian nationalism we are seeing.  It is interesting that similar attitudes in Serbia gained them nothing -- I guess Russia is a bigger country.

Ukraine should have been left to work out its problems on its own, but Putin saw personal political advantage domestically, and went on to prove that he is without scruple or honor.

MSNBC and FOX

I'm surprised MSNBC is apparently so weak. I live overseas and frankly was shocked during a visit this summer to the States to see how blatantly partisan they, and FOX on the other side of things, really are. I guess the objective is to appeal to a niche of the audience by giving them political dog-meat.

Wizards and witches sometimes don't know they are magical beings, but the Ministry of Magic does, and watches.