YES! I never heard Mr. Chomsky speak on these topics and yet I already also held the same opinions expressed here! Exactly in fact except that I had not thought about the concept of class always being tied to criminalization of behavior. This is a fantastic point obviously and I plan to use it in talking to people when I find myself making the point that I feel they should do like me and not drink and not smoke cigarettes. I only do this when prompted out when the opportunity comes along to say something about it to a person that I feel will understand that I am sharing opinions without any judgement of users.
Congress will not allow the military to ban smoking on military bases. Young people join the service and are introduced to cheap cigarettes. Many people leave the service as heavy smokers and drinkers.
Alcohol and tobacco are not necessary to human survival. Sugar is. Moderation should only apply to things we need. Things we WANT that can harm us should be kept away from society.
I think that by 'sugar' he meant cane sugar, which is really not necessary for survival, yet we put it in almost all of our food. There's no way he meant the chemicals, which are obviously necessary for life. Old World societies existed for without the cane sugar plant, and when it was discovered, it was incredibly profitable because people would pay so much for it. Today, the massive amounts of sugar (and corn syrup) we put in our food is harmful and is a noticeable problem, which he was referring to.
That doesn't make any sense. So people shouldn't even be allowed to have a couple of beers on a Saturday night? So where do you draw the line, then? Again, more or less everything is harmful if you take too much of it. Bread has a lot of carbohydrates, and can be dangerous if you eat too much of it. Should we ban bread? And the same goes for chocolate, red meat and lots of other things. So how do we decide what should be banned?
I'm not sure poor/uneducated people do that lottery out of a lack of awareness - I'm pretty sure it's desperation. If you have money, the lottery won't solve all your problems, your problems are elsewhere. If you're poor, you're being offered an obviously pie-in-the-sky solution, but it would absolutely solve every issue in one sweep on the off chance you succeeded.
They do lack awareness that is gained through education. The idea of the "off chance you might succeed" lacks understanding of how mathematically impossible it is for you to actually win it. If they truly knew the percentage of the chance they had to win the lottery would they still throw away that money? I do however believe that it has as much to do with the concept of gambling. A lot of people love the rush they get from it, so much that they're ok with losing the money.
The fact that the federal government poisoned people in the cause of prohibition looks like a definite case of class warfare. Perhaps chronic boredom is not a valid medical use of marihuana. It would be better (in such a case) to simply lead a more interesting life. This is wise.
I think "advertising" is not the same as free speech. The product could still be sold and advertised but he said cocaine (not even legal) shouldn't be shown on large billboards that children could see. I think the same rules apply to pornography and strip club advertising. It's not a violation of free speech, more just having societal standards and expectations.
can't really find evidence that artifical sweeteners are as bad as he makes them out... what bugs me about him is how he uses an authoritative tone to try to brush past opposition.
They are actually reports citing artificial sweeteners are bad. I can't remember the details but essentially the idea is that this kind of substances tricks the body into "thinking" it is getting sugar (and thus reacts to it) but in fact is not -- and that has damaging effects. But trying to convince a layman who is asking for evidence is just a futile battle because at the end of the day, he chooses what he wants to believe in since you cannot convince him with language (scientific, statistical, etc) that he does not intimately understand. So, I have seen the documentary and I chose to believe it, even though, I have not analyzed and understood completely the science behind it.
How was this tone authoritative?! His intelligence commands authority should you choose to respect it and be that sort of a person but he is not using an authoritative tone. And you have got to be out of your mind to say that you can't find any evidence.
How many damn times does the man have to say "probably" or "in my own view" or similar for you to notice that he is being sure to explicitly demonstrate that these are his thoughts and not the decree of an authority? "Authoritative tone," you say. Get out of here. Where did you get this from? Let me guess: that "neurobiologist" who 99% discusses racist, anti-Muslim opinions and maybe some brain stuff also though I've never heard that?
I can listen to his talks forever! Wouldn't it be good if we were all as intelligent as Mr. Choosy.
YES! I never heard Mr. Chomsky speak on these topics and yet I already also held the same opinions expressed here! Exactly in fact except that I had not thought about the concept of class always being tied to criminalization of behavior. This is a fantastic point obviously and I plan to use it in talking to people when I find myself making the point that I feel they should do like me and not drink and not smoke cigarettes. I only do this when prompted out when the opportunity comes along to say something about it to a person that I feel will understand that I am sharing opinions without any judgement of users.
Congress will not allow the military to ban smoking on military bases. Young people join the service and are introduced to cheap cigarettes. Many people leave the service as heavy smokers and drinkers.
I need to be instantly gratified with elicit substances.
What year was this? My head is blown by how far ahead of his time Chomsky usualy is.
Variety is the spice of life. Also moderation is key.
"everything in moderation, including moderation"
Alcohol and tobacco are not necessary to human survival. Sugar is. Moderation should only apply to things we need. Things we WANT that can harm us should be kept away from society.
I think that by 'sugar' he meant cane sugar, which is really not necessary for survival, yet we put it in almost all of our food. There's no way he meant the chemicals, which are obviously necessary for life. Old World societies existed for without the cane sugar plant, and when it was discovered, it was incredibly profitable because people would pay so much for it. Today, the massive amounts of sugar (and corn syrup) we put in our food is harmful and is a noticeable problem, which he was referring to.
i think having an escape is necessary to a decent life, if not survival. Sober 100% isn't for everyone because, you know, life.
That doesn't make any sense. So people shouldn't even be allowed to have a couple of beers on a Saturday night?
So where do you draw the line, then? Again, more or less everything is harmful if you take too much of it. Bread has a lot of carbohydrates, and can be dangerous if you eat too much of it. Should we ban bread? And the same goes for chocolate, red meat and lots of other things. So how do we decide what should be banned?
sure because you are a fascist who wants to decide what people can and cannot use.
***** lol!
I'm not sure poor/uneducated people do that lottery out of a lack of awareness - I'm pretty sure it's desperation. If you have money, the lottery won't solve all your problems, your problems are elsewhere. If you're poor, you're being offered an obviously pie-in-the-sky solution, but it would absolutely solve every issue in one sweep on the off chance you succeeded.
They do lack awareness that is gained through education. The idea of the "off chance you might succeed" lacks understanding of how mathematically impossible it is for you to actually win it. If they truly knew the percentage of the chance they had to win the lottery would they still throw away that money?
I do however believe that it has as much to do with the concept of gambling. A lot of people love the rush they get from it, so much that they're ok with losing the money.
Interesting
The fact that the federal government poisoned people in the cause of prohibition looks like a definite case of class warfare. Perhaps chronic boredom is not a valid medical use of marihuana. It would be better (in such a case) to simply lead a more interesting life. This is wise.
End poverty. (Although my mom was poor as a kid, and she didn't really know it because her mother was so funny. The poor are not necessarity bored.)
6:25 Anti free speech with harmful advertising.
Noam Chomsky is not a free speech absolutist, which is good
I think "advertising" is not the same as free speech. The product could still be sold and advertised but he said cocaine (not even legal) shouldn't be shown on large billboards that children could see. I think the same rules apply to pornography and strip club advertising. It's not a violation of free speech, more just having societal standards and expectations.
can't really find evidence that artifical sweeteners are as bad as he makes them out... what bugs me about him is how he uses an authoritative tone to try to brush past opposition.
They are actually reports citing artificial sweeteners are bad. I can't remember the details but essentially the idea is that this kind of substances tricks the body into "thinking" it is getting sugar (and thus reacts to it) but in fact is not -- and that has damaging effects. But trying to convince a layman who is asking for evidence is just a futile battle because at the end of the day, he chooses what he wants to believe in since you cannot convince him with language (scientific, statistical, etc) that he does not intimately understand. So, I have seen the documentary and I chose to believe it, even though, I have not analyzed and understood completely the science behind it.
How was this tone authoritative?! His intelligence commands authority should you choose to respect it and be that sort of a person but he is not using an authoritative tone. And you have got to be out of your mind to say that you can't find any evidence.
How many damn times does the man have to say "probably" or "in my own view" or similar for you to notice that he is being sure to explicitly demonstrate that these are his thoughts and not the decree of an authority? "Authoritative tone," you say. Get out of here. Where did you get this from? Let me guess: that "neurobiologist" who 99% discusses racist, anti-Muslim opinions and maybe some brain stuff also though I've never heard that?
I got aspartame poisoning once. What do you mean you can't find evidence lol