It's not even the insistence that people must take in less energy-though again, that too is an invasive infraction on someone's autonomy. No, the evil is the desire to force people to exist in an acute state of hunger because it is uncomfortable, painful, punishing.
It is this malevolent indulgence that has to challenged and blocked. The drive toward this is as out of control neurotic as it is completely unnecessary. What I was pointing at is that even if you insist on reducing the amount of calories other people take in the most rational, efficient and humane way of going about this is to reduce hunger function.
Not to suppress it, why would you do that?
If you feel someone is taking too many breaths, i.e. hyperventilating, and demanded they reduced their intake of air, what would be your instinctive response- to suppress their breathing? To tell them to cover their mouth and nose with a cloth so they found it harder to breathe? Would you then and act all surprised when they instinctively removed the cloth when the urge to take a proper breath became irresistible, when they "came off" your plan for them so to speak?
Or would your impulse be to reduce breathing activity? And what path do you think that would take? Calming them down. There's a symbiotic interaction between the overall level of stimulus in the body and breathing rate, i.e. walk faster, breath faster [and harder].
Increased anxiety, breathing rate goes up.
In this situation you are likely to tell them "Caaaalm, dowwn", emphasising with your hands like playing an invisible sinking piano, whilst mouthing exaggeratedly slowed breaths, indicating they should follow suit.
Even if you don't care about anything but getting folks to lower their calorie intake, you still have no reason to starve people but your own desire. On the contrary, you should know that will lead only to the thwarting of what is supposed to be your wish for them to eat less. As people are unlikely to be able to tolerate this discomfort and urge to do something so in-built.
This desire to starve people is itself an imbalance. If it ever started from an opinion-that people should lose weight because you say so-it has crept from that to an urge, a need even to make people hurt. To put them and keep them in a world of that pain because of how you feel inside. To meet your emotional need.
Like a hang 'em/flog 'em type who doesn't care what the consequences of inflicting punitive rough treatment good, bad or indifferent. Rarely satisfied, they believe anyone convicted of a crime in jail should expect the possibility of being raped, beaten up and possibly shivved, on top of the loss of their liberty.
As far as they're concerned, the person made that choice when they decided to
Those who act under the influence of this anorexia or starvation-by-proxy compulsion exploit the power of assertion over others afforded them by the crusade and its calories in/out =weight premise.
This sense of rectitude-that it is good to starve those who deserve it-that means any weight loss must be induced via this means alone. Leading to self-starvers everywhere. It is a mess.
The need for a moral cleansing of the sin of "overeating" being fat represents this, regardless of what people do or don't eat. Only being slim stands of excision of sin, so as long as a person is fat, they are in an unclean state, a state of sin.
Nazis, bigots, misanthropes, original sin-ists, eugenicists, psychopaths, everywhere love this, flocking to it like birds of a feather. They define humans as essentially hateful, savage and unclean who need brutal treatment, by the few strong and better to civilise and cleanse them of the sin of existing-once they exit the womb of course.
The 'obesity' crusade/crisis/panic has of course stoked, encouraged and liberated what would otherwise be checked by reaction to its awfulness.
Worship of hunger is for those who are [or have become] literally excited, turned on by the prospect of other people existing in pain and torment.
No comments:
Post a Comment