When Do People Deserve The Results Of Their Actions?

[Villages PL]

WARNING: If you like dull unemotional threads, this thread may not be for you. You might think I'm "stirring the pot" but I'm just asking questions that I think are interesting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) If I drive my car above the speed limit and I get a speeding ticket, do I deserve to get a ticket?

2) If I slack-off in school and get failing grades, do I deserve to fail?

3) If I go to jail for robbing a bank, do I deserve to be in jail?

4) If I live an unhealthy livestyle, knowing that it will likely lead to poor health, do I deserve poor health?

5) If I jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, knowing that I will most likely not survive the fall, do I deserve to die?

6) If you say something that you know is judgemental, do you deserve to be judged?

If you answered "no" to all of the above, do you think there's ever a situation when people deserve the results of their actions? If you answered "yes" to some of the above, are you being judgemental?

Okay, fire away! :duck::duck::duck:

[ugotme]

Answered YES to all and . . .

NO I don't think I am being judgmental.

We are all (or should be) responsible for our own actions !

Do I believe there could be extenuating circumstances - YES!
Once had a friend in my car who was apparently having a heart attack.
No cell phones back then - went like a bat out of hell to get him to a hospital and/or get stopped by the police!
Got him there - he survived!

Should I have gotten a ticket -Yeah I guess so.
Would I do it again? - Yeah I KNOW so !

IMHO of course !

[Golfingnut]

:duck::duck::duck:OH OH, I answered yes to everyone of them also.

[Parker]

Yes to most. I guess I'm judgmental. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[rubicon]

I am sitting here scratching my head..........the answers based on how the questions are posed lead to but one response???????????????? unless you can advance a denial defense>

[Golfingnut]

I am sitting here scratching my head..........the answers based on how the questions are posed lead to but one response????????????????

NO NO NO. there are some that would say no to several of them. Just not normal people.

[Villages PL]

I am sitting here scratching my head..........the answers based on how the questions are posed lead to but one response???????????????? unless you can advance a denial defense>

Well, I don't think it's as cut-and-dry as you think. Take suicide: Some might say that people only commit suicide because they are depressed. And their depression might only be a temporary. Therefore, they don't deserve to die. That's one way of looking at it, is it not?

Others might think: Everything happens for a reason; it's part of God's plan. Therefore suicide was deserved.

And how about this?: If the person wants to die, for whatever reason, who are we to deny them their decision? So it's deserved in that sense.

[rubicon]

Well, I don't think it's as cut-and-dry as you think. Take suicide: Some might say that people only commit suicide because they are depressed. And their depression might only be a temporary. Therefore, they don't deserve to die. That's one way of looking at it, is it not?

Others might think: Everything happens for a reason; it's part of God's plan. Therefore suicide was deserved.

And how about this?: If the person wants to die, for whatever reason, who are we to deny them their decision? So it's deserved in that sense.

Villages Pl: In all due respect each of the examples you cite make it clear that there will be obvious consequences. Suicide conjectures up most emotion and concern because we know the individual is suffering mentally. However they clearly understand the consequences of their act. Do you recall the movie "They Shoot Horses don't They". My very best friend committed suicide by pointing a gun to his head so I do not take this subject matter lightly. Keep in mind that there are people who repeatedly attempt suicide until they succeed.

[Villages PL]

Villages Pl: In all due respect each of the examples you cite make it clear that there will be obvious consequences. Suicide conjectures up most emotion and concern because we know the individual is suffering mentally. However they clearly understand the consequences of their act. Do you recall the movie "They Shoot Horses don't They". My very best friend committed suicide by pointing a gun to his head so I do not take this subject matter lightly. Keep in mind that there are people who repeatedly attempt suicide until they succeed.

I understand. I had two neighbors and a good friend who took their own lives. No one is suggesting that it be taken lightly. Did you assume I was taking it lightly? One of those neighbors was here in the villages and I was the one who discovered her because of the newspapers adding up in her driveway.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

I think that people misunderstand the term judgemental. There is nothing wrong with judging actions. If someone stabs someone, it's not judgemental to say that was a bad thing to do. It would be judgemental to say that the person was a bad person or had no redeeming qualities.

Judging acts is different from judging people. Only God gets to judge people.

If people deserve the results to their good decisions, why would it be wrong to feel that the deserve the results of their bad decisions.

In the case of suicide, it may be, and in most cases it probably is, that the person is suffering from some kind of mental illness. A person in that state may not be responsible for his or her actions.

We should look at cases where a person is suffering from a terminal illness and doesn't want to suffer anymore differently. In those cases it could be argued that there is no hope, no way to turn things around and the person is only going to suffer needlessly for a period of time. That may be a sound and cogent decision on their part.

[kittygilchrist]

WARNING: If you like dull unemotional threads, this thread may not be for you. You might think I'm "stirring the pot" but I'm just asking questions that I think are interesting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) If I drive my car above the speed limit and I get a speeding ticket, do I deserve to get a ticket?

2) If I slack-off in school and get failing grades, do I deserve to fail?

3) If I go to jail for robbing a bank, do I deserve to be in jail?

4) If I live an unhealthy livestyle, knowing that it will likely lead to poor health, do I deserve poor health?

5) If I jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, knowing that I will most likely not survive the fall, do I deserve to die?

6) If you say something that you know is judgemental, do you deserve to be judged?

If you answered "no" to all of the above, do you think there's ever a situation when people deserve the results of their actions? If you answered "yes" to some of the above, are you being judgemental?

Okay, fire away! :duck::duck::duck:

If you ask a biased question, do you deserve an objective answer? I'm editing this post...I was off to say only that...a more thoughtful response on my part ...situations like this cannot be boiled to a sentence. And even if I know all that is possible to know about a situation, I am limited by my own biases and blind spots...

[gomoho]

NO NO NO. there are some that would say no to several of them. Just not normal people.

Now to me your response is judgemental - does that make me judgemental???

[kittygilchrist]

Our so called justice system is about luck and who has money to pay for a lawyer. If you are lucky and guilty, you get an objective judge and a stupid jury. if you're unlucky and innocent, you get a judge who hates you from hello and the jury won't matter.

I can serve on a jury under the law and use judgment and critical thinking to make my mind up in what seems to me an objective way, and apply the law, and I'm not very easy to fool and see through lawyers, but it's not true justice, it's just the way our system works. Justice in a nutshell: who has the biggest gun/atty..history of our legal system is very telling and fascinating..

[twinklesweep]

WARNING: If you like dull unemotional threads, this thread may not be for you. You might think I'm "stirring the pot" but I'm just asking questions that I think are interesting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) If I drive my car above the speed limit and I get a speeding ticket, do I deserve to get a ticket?

2) If I slack-off in school and get failing grades, do I deserve to fail?

3) If I go to jail for robbing a bank, do I deserve to be in jail?

4) If I live an unhealthy livestyle, knowing that it will likely lead to poor health, do I deserve poor health?

5) If I jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, knowing that I will most likely not survive the fall, do I deserve to die?

6) If you say something that you know is judgemental, do you deserve to be judged?

If you answered "no" to all of the above, do you think there's ever a situation when people deserve the results of their actions? If you answered "yes" to some of the above, are you being judgemental?

Okay, fire away! :duck::duck::duck:

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. "Deserve" is a completely inappropriate verb in this context.

6. No (assuming you mean judged by fellow human beings). As pointed out by another poster, only God judges. The job of God is taken already, and besides, none of us is qualified for it.

[SemiMike]

Here's a perspective on these issues from an Eastern viewpoint, as the so-called Fifth Remembrance of the Buddha: "My actions are my only true belongings. I cannot escape the consequences of my actions. My actions are the ground upon which I stand."

[Parker]

Here's a perspective on these issues from an Eastern viewpoint, as the so-called Fifth Remembrance of the Buddha: "My actions are my only true belongings. I cannot escape the consequences of my actions. My actions are the ground upon which I stand."

Wow. Love that.

[billethkid]

and what is wrong with being judgemental?

One cannot make it trough a day without being judgemetal?

It is presented, in my opinion, as if it were perhaps not a good thing to do....perhaps!

btk

[senior citizen]

Here's a perspective on these issues from an Eastern viewpoint, as the so-called Fifth Remembrance of the Buddha: "My actions are my only true belongings. I cannot escape the consequences of my actions. My actions are the ground upon which I stand."

Ditto. I'm a big fan of the present Dalai Lama. Happy to see your post.

Case in point......Jodi Arias slaughtering Travis Alexander.
Overkill, to say the least. She could have just walked out the door.

I do tend to believe he went into a rage when she dropped his new camera in the shower. Irregardless of all of her lies to cover up her evil deed (after the fact), I do believe she was a victim of verbal abuse and perhaps physical abuse. That in and of itself does not condone murder. I do not believe in murder.

She could have simply left his home..........or, never gone back there in the first place.

Whether or not she "snapped", probably about something vile he said to her.......it is no excuse to take a life. That action of hers has now ruined her own life. Life without parole in an Arizona prison system will not be a picnic. Death Row will go on for years and years with all the appeals.
That route also will not be a day in the park.

Jodi Arias cannot escape the consequences of her actions the day she killed Travis Alexander.

I do also believe that she never told anyone of the "domestic abuse" to preserve his reputation; it was a dysfunctional relationship to say the least. I also never thought it was premeditated. The jury should have been sequestered as when they returned home, how could they avoid the news and late night shows bashing Jodi Arias?

I feel deeply for Travis' family who will have to sit through another round of gory photos, lurid testimony, etc.

Jennifer Wilmott, the female defense lawyer, did a remakable job of humanizing Jodi when she put her hands on Jodi's shoulders prior to giving her final closing argument.......

Again, Jodi has no one to blame but herself for her own actions......however, the jury was conflicted as far as showing mercy vs. killing her. As Wilmott said, "Two wrongs don't make a right".

Not to bash dead person, but Travis was not a saint....although he passed himself off as a virgin "Bishop" of his church. No one deserves to die for that, however, it was a tricky case all around..........

Forevermore, Jodi Arias' actions will be the ground upon which she stands.

[quirky3]

Here's a perspective on these issues from an Eastern viewpoint, as the so-called Fifth Remembrance of the Buddha: "My actions are my only true belongings. I cannot escape the consequences of my actions. My actions are the ground upon which I stand."

Welcome, SemiMike! I find the eastern perspective refreshing!

[Taltarzac725]

WARNING: If you like dull unemotional threads, this thread may not be for you. You might think I'm "stirring the pot" but I'm just asking questions that I think are interesting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) If I drive my car above the speed limit and I get a speeding ticket, do I deserve to get a ticket?

2) If I slack-off in school and get failing grades, do I deserve to fail?

3) If I go to jail for robbing a bank, do I deserve to be in jail?

4) If I live an unhealthy livestyle, knowing that it will likely lead to poor health, do I deserve poor health?

5) If I jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, knowing that I will most likely not survive the fall, do I deserve to die?

6) If you say something that you know is judgemental, do you deserve to be judged?

If you answered "no" to all of the above, do you think there's ever a situation when people deserve the results of their actions? If you answered "yes" to some of the above, are you being judgemental?

Okay, fire away! :duck::duck::duck:

Some of these questions are a bit simplistic.

There are many extremely successful people who received bad grades at some point in their lives and went on to great achievements. Einstein. Many celebrities in music, acting, etc. have such backgrounds.

Suicides can be done for any variety of reasons. It depends a lot on the circumstances/culture/time period, etc. Think Masada. Marilyn Monroe.

There are various speed traps in Florida where you might be going two miles over the limit and get a ticket because that is the way that community's funds are boosted.

It is hard to know the whole story about many people so I find it had to be judgmental especially considering how fallible our knowledge of the facts can be. All those defendants cleared by DNA testing often because of the game like nature of our legal system and the egos involved.

[looneycat]

yes to all. We are responsible for what we do, we are, however, free to bitch and moan afterwards

[Russ_Boston]

I think deserve is wrong verb for many of these questions. Like it or not we don't live in a true 'wrong or right' society. And I'm thankful for that. If you don't think there are gray areas on any of these questions then maybe there is such a thing as being TOO judgmental. Judges themselves, whose job it is to be judgmental, have guidelines to go by when sentencing or determining guilt. Even to a judge there is no easy answer sometimes and they have to weigh all the factors.

[Villages PL]

I think that people misunderstand the term judgemental. There is nothing wrong with judging actions. If someone stabs someone, it's not judgemental to say that was a bad thing to do. It would be judgemental to say that the person was a bad person or had no redeeming qualities.

Judging acts is different from judging people. Only God gets to judge people.

If people deserve the results to their good decisions, why would it be wrong to feel that the deserve the results of their bad decisions.

In the case of suicide, it may be, and in most cases it probably is, that the person is suffering from some kind of mental illness. A person in that state may not be responsible for his or her actions.

We should look at cases where a person is suffering from a terminal illness and doesn't want to suffer anymore differently. In those cases it could be argued that there is no hope, no way to turn things around and the person is only going to suffer needlessly for a period of time. That may be a sound and cogent decision on their part.

Good post....lots of good points.


:BigApplause:

[Villages PL]

and what is wrong with being judgemental?

One cannot make it trough a day without being judgemetal?

It is presented, in my opinion, as if it were perhaps not a good thing to do....perhaps!

btk

No, I wasn't judging whether "being judgemental" is good or not, I purposely wanted it to be vague.

I like your answer and feel inspired to add something: What takes place when singles seek a mate to marry? Don't they do a lot of dating? And how would they be able to decide which one is right for them without judging the other person's actions? (It's been said that "being judgemental" is not the right thing for us to do, so I changed it to "judging actions".)

[skyc6]

No, I wasn't judging whether "being judgemental" is good or not, I purposely wanted it to be vague.

I like your answer and feel inspired to add something: What takes place when singles seek a mate to marry? Don't they do a lot of dating? And how would they be able to decide without being judgemental? Or are they just judging the other person's actions?

Rather than being judgmental, which has a negative context, I think it is being able to form an opinion about something, whether it is right or wrong.

[Gerald]

If you live on a golf course do people have the right to be rude to you and annoy you after hours because no one is there to check what is going on after hours on the courses. The people seem to think if you live on a golf course you are entitled to no privacy any time even at nine at night...sorry just sounding off I guess

[Topspinmo]

"after hours because no one is there to check what is going on after hours on the courses." Why are there people on Golf course after hours?? I thought that was against the Village Law? aren't there somebody you can call and report this?

Hear some more hypothetical questions:

IF I do something illegal am I breaking the law and if so am I considered criminal? if I'm illegal (ops pardon me Undocumented) do I have the right to vote in country that I am not citizen of? :ohdear::ohdear: If I stay more than 30 days in another state am I now an illegal resident of that state or am I now a legal resident? If I vote more than once is that illegal?:ohdear::ohdear: Law is written so you can't tell who's innocent or who's guilty and can be twisted many different ways depending on how good (or evil, slick) your lawyer's are.:ohdear::ohdear: Only in USA criminal or illegal has more rights that citizen and gets free medical... Makes you wonder why more aren't on the freebee list? is that right or wrong.... I guess I am judgmental when it comes to law and lawyers......:ohdear:

If police officer gives males tickets 99% and only gives Female tickets 40% of the time is he judgmental or Soft for the skirts?? :ohdear::ohdear:I wonder this cause I have never gotten out of minor traffic ticket (maybe I don't wine, just face the music) but hear about woman getting of scott free or just warning??

Law is rarely fair or impartial IMO of course, others may disagree???????

Why do they let cold blooded killers live? why do governors step in and let cool blooded killers live when they was convicted and sentenced to death in court of law.

[Quixote]

No, I wasn't judging whether "being judgemental" is good or not, I purposely wanted it to be vague.

I like your answer and feel inspired to add something: What takes place when singles seek a mate to marry? Don't they do a lot of dating? And how would they be able to decide which one is right for them without judging the other person's actions? (It's been said that "being judgemental" is not the right thing for us to do, so I changed it to "judging actions".)

Sensible change, IMHO; judging actions is a far cry from judging others! However, even judging actions is (obviously!) from our individual perspective, not a universal thing.

Rather than being judgmental, which has a negative context, I think it is being able to form an opinion about something, whether it is right or wrong.

Very well put! We must remember, though, that while there are societal standards for some "right or wrong" issues, there are others, as I just wrote above, that are (obviously") from our individual perspective and not universal (if I may quote myself...).

[blueash]

The danger occurs when you slip without even noticing from judging to pre-judging a situation or an individual. Being judicial is a positive, being prejudicial is a negative. The former requires information which hopefully is in itself accurate and free from bias. The latter requires satisfaction with one's own unchallenged world view, or ignorance.

Language is important. How is a sex worker different from a call girl from a slut? The job is the same but the word you choose calls up differing mental pictures. Is a person who speeds an illegal driver? I think the word deserves is a loaded word. It suggests to me that punishment is merited after having considered all the mitigating circumstances. Too many of your examples have intentionally been left vague thus I don't have enough information to decide whether the person "deserves" the consequence.

So in the spirit of the challenge I will answer NO most and give an example of how it could be that the punishment isn't merited by the offense

1. Speeding ticket.. as above, friend is having a heart attack and you are getting him to the hospital. Mitigating circumstance, driver needs help not a ticket
2. Failing student... Student has a treatable learning disability which school is not addressing. He seems to be daydreaming and never gets his work done, slacking. Repeating the grade will not help, diagnosis and therapy are what is needed and this student may shine. Or to make it even simpler, the kid needs glasses.
3. I can even stretch this one. Episode of Bones. Bank robber was forced to do it because he had been kidnapped and had remote control explosive devise strapped to his body. So he robbed the bank but did not deserve to go to jail.
4. Unhealthy lifestyle.. Who is defining unhealthy and how certain is your data? If a person fails to exercise due to arthritis do they deserve more trouble? Do smokers deserve lung cancer and COPD? If a person gets high from running they are considered to have a good addiction. If a person gets high from eating, a bad one.
5. Suicidal moment. If you jump you should expect to die which is very different from deserve to die.

6. This is actually the most difficult. If a person is judgmental do they deserve to be judged? If I encounter a bigot do I have an obligation to point out their bigotry? Does my sense of just walk away and avoid confrontation constitute me being judgmental but civil or judgmental and cowardly? Is the offense I experience at hearing the expression of prejudice my problem or should I be judging the speaker harshly? Does the speaker even know that his words are offensive? The seller "gypped" me. The buyer jewed me down. He was an Indian giver. All words that are fortunately becoming less commonly heard as all are highly offensive if you know the history of the words. But if a speaker is unaware of the derivation... Do I correct her, do I judge her, do I walk away? See it is never easy.

[golf4me]

The danger occurs when you slip without even noticing from judging to pre-judging a situation or an individual. Being judicial is a positive, being prejudicial is a negative. The former requires information which hopefully is in itself accurate and free from bias. The latter requires satisfaction with one's own unchallenged world view, or ignorance.

Language is important. How is a sex worker different from a call girl from a slut? The job is the same but the word you choose calls up differing mental pictures. Is a person who speeds an illegal driver? I think the word deserves is a loaded word. It suggests to me that punishment is merited after having considered all the mitigating circumstances. Too many of your examples have intentionally been left vague thus I don't have enough information to decide whether the person "deserves" the consequence.

So in the spirit of the challenge I will answer NO most and give an example of how it could be that the punishment isn't merited by the offense

1. Speeding ticket.. as above, friend is having a heart attack and you are getting him to the hospital. Mitigating circumstance, driver needs help not a ticket
2. Failing student... Student has a treatable learning disability which school is not addressing. He seems to be daydreaming and never gets his work done, slacking. Repeating the grade will not help, diagnosis and therapy are what is needed and this student may shine. Or to make it even simpler, the kid needs glasses.
3. I can even stretch this one. Episode of Bones. Bank robber was forced to do it because he had been kidnapped and had remote control explosive devise strapped to his body. So he robbed the bank but did not deserve to go to jail.
4. Unhealthy lifestyle.. Who is defining unhealthy and how certain is your data? If a person fails to exercise due to arthritis do they deserve more trouble? Do smokers deserve lung cancer and COPD? If a person gets high from running they are considered to have a good addiction. If a person gets high from eating, a bad one.
5. Suicidal moment. If you jump you should expect to die which is very different from deserve to die.

6. This is actually the most difficult. If a person is judgmental do they deserve to be judged? If I encounter a bigot do I have an obligation to point out their bigotry? Does my sense of just walk away and avoid confrontation constitute me being judgmental but civil or judgmental and cowardly? Is the offense I experience at hearing the expression of prejudice my problem or should I be judging the speaker harshly? Does the speaker even know that his words are offensive? The seller "gypped" me. The buyer jewed me down. He was an Indian giver. All words that are fortunately becoming less commonly heard as all are highly offensive if you know the history of the words. But if a speaker is unaware of the derivation... Do I correct her, do I judge her, do I walk away? See it is never easy.

A very deep and thoughtful post and very well presented as to give us pause and reason to think...and not judgmental. (The American spelling, Brits spell it ..judgemental.

It is VERY hard not to pre-judge at our age sometimes. If we get on an airplane, we feel safer if everyone looks like the guys and girls in OUR town, the one we grew up in. If not we begin thinking about shoes with stuff in them and underwear under folks clothes who look well, you know...different.
It is human to jump to conclusions. Human. Even the kindest among us do it .

[dsned]

I have a 19 yr old daughter and you bet I want her to be judgmental!!! If she sees a guy binge drinking I want her to judge him as NOT someone to get to know. If she sees a group of "youths" who have their pants down and listening to rap, do I want her to "judge" them and stay away??? YOU BET!!! Judging situations and people are part of what keeps us alive and well. Have you ever heard of using "good judgement??"

[buggyone]

"This is actually the most difficult. If a person is judgmental do they deserve to be judged? If I encounter a bigot do I have an obligation to point out their bigotry?"

Yes, it is your duty to point out bigotry. For example, in my weekly poker group, one older player from Tidewater Virginia played a game (dealer's choice) that he called "N--- in the Woodpile." You better bet that I corrected that right away and told him that was definitely not a term to be ever used again. He apologized and has not done so again.

[Quixote]

I have a 19 yr old daughter and you bet I want her to be judgmental!!! If she sees a guy binge drinking I want her to judge him as NOT someone to get to know. If she sees a group of "youths" who have their pants down and listening to rap, do I want her to "judge" them and stay away??? YOU BET!!! Judging situations and people are part of what keeps us alive and well. Have you ever heard of using "good judgement??"

IMHO, you are not so much asking (or expecting) your daughter to be "judgmental" but rather to evaluate the BEHAVIOR of the individuals with whom she comes in contact and hopefully to avoid individuals who manifest the behaviors you mention. This, again IMHO, is not the same as sitting in judgment of others.

[Quixote]

Does the speaker even know that his words are offensive? The seller "gypped" me. The buyer jewed me down. He was an Indian giver. All words that are fortunately becoming less commonly heard as all are highly offensive if you know the history of the words. But if a speaker is unaware of the derivation... Do I correct her, do I judge her, do I walk away? See it is never easy.

A very thoughtful post, blueash (the entire post, that is); thank you very much. I am focusing here on the incredible number of people who use words and expressions like these without having a clue that they are being offensive, because "they have always heard them used like this." How many people know, as another example, that the phrase "rule of thumb," so commonly used in many different ways, pertains to wife beating?... Whether to correct that person or to walk away would, for me, depend on my relationship with that person. If it were a stranger, I probably would not get into it, whereas if it were someone I knew and cared about, I would discuss it. In all likelihood I would not judge that person, even though I wouldn't appreciate the phraseology being used.

[Villages PL]

Some of these questions are a bit simplistic.

That was on purpose to see how people would respond. As you can see, a lot of people answered "yes" to all questions.

There are many extremely successful people who received bad grades at some point in their lives and went on to great achievements. Einstein. Many celebrities in music, acting, etc. have such backgrounds.

Yes, and I include myself in that group. :thumbup:

Suicides can be done for any variety of reasons. It depends a lot on the circumstances/culture/time period, etc. Think Masada. Marilyn Monroe.

I agree. It could be because of drugs, alcoholism, gambling debts etc.. Do they bear any responsibility for starting down those roads in the first place?


There are various speed traps in Florida where you might be going two miles over the limit and get a ticket because that is the way that community's funds are boosted.

I always watch my speed very carefully.

It is hard to know the whole story about many people so I find it had to be judgmental especially considering how fallible our knowledge of the facts can be. All those defendants cleared by DNA testing often because of the game like nature of our legal system and the egos involved.

I guess that's a "no" to all 6 questions? That's fine, I'm not going to be judgemental. :)

[Villages PL]

I think deserve is wrong verb for many of these questions. Like it or not we don't live in a true 'wrong or right' society. And I'm thankful for that. If you don't think there are gray areas on any of these questions then maybe there is such a thing as being TOO judgmental. Judges themselves, whose job it is to be judgmental, have guidelines to go by when sentencing or determining guilt. Even to a judge there is no easy answer sometimes and they have to weigh all the factors.

I think I meant "with all things being equal" and no obvious excuses. In other words, the speeder knew he was speeding and didn't need to be speeding. The bank robber knew it was wrong and didn't need to rob a bank. The student was slacking off and knew it could mean failure. The suicide person was tired of living. The overweight person living an unhealthy lifestyle knew the risk and decided to take it.

When an overweight person comes into the ER with a heart attack, don't the people on staff ever wonder, "boy, what was he/she thinking?" Many think the word "deserve" is not the right verb. Give me a verb that you think works better. How about the verb "working"? He/she was working on clogging up their arteries and, sure enough, it worked.
There's always the word "qualified". He/she was knowingly living an unhealthy lifestyle and became qualiied for a heart attack. We can use different words to make it nicer, but the actions and results are the same.

[rubicon]

The danger occurs when you slip without even noticing from judging to pre-judging a situation or an individual. Being judicial is a positive, being prejudicial is a negative. The former requires information which hopefully is in itself accurate and free from bias. The latter requires satisfaction with one's own unchallenged world view, or ignorance.

Language is important. How is a sex worker different from a call girl from a slut? The job is the same but the word you choose calls up differing mental pictures. Is a person who speeds an illegal driver? I think the word deserves is a loaded word. It suggests to me that punishment is merited after having considered all the mitigating circumstances. Too many of your examples have intentionally been left vague thus I don't have enough information to decide whether the person "deserves" the consequence.

So in the spirit of the challenge I will answer NO most and give an example of how it could be that the punishment isn't merited by the offense

1. Speeding ticket.. as above, friend is having a heart attack and you are getting him to the hospital. Mitigating circumstance, driver needs help not a ticket
2. Failing student... Student has a treatable learning disability which school is not addressing. He seems to be daydreaming and never gets his work done, slacking. Repeating the grade will not help, diagnosis and therapy are what is needed and this student may shine. Or to make it even simpler, the kid needs glasses.
3. I can even stretch this one. Episode of Bones. Bank robber was forced to do it because he had been kidnapped and had remote control explosive devise strapped to his body. So he robbed the bank but did not deserve to go to jail.
4. Unhealthy lifestyle.. Who is defining unhealthy and how certain is your data? If a person fails to exercise due to arthritis do they deserve more trouble? Do smokers deserve lung cancer and COPD? If a person gets high from running they are considered to have a good addiction. If a person gets high from eating, a bad one.
5. Suicidal moment. If you jump you should expect to die which is very different from deserve to die.

6. This is actually the most difficult. If a person is judgmental do they deserve to be judged? If I encounter a bigot do I have an obligation to point out their bigotry? Does my sense of just walk away and avoid confrontation constitute me being judgmental but civil or judgmental and cowardly? Is the offense I experience at hearing the expression of prejudice my problem or should I be judging the speaker harshly? Does the speaker even know that his words are offensive? The seller "gypped" me. The buyer jewed me down. He was an Indian giver. All words that are fortunately becoming less commonly heard as all are highly offensive if you know the history of the words. But if a speaker is unaware of the derivation... Do I correct her, do I judge her, do I walk away? See it is never easy.

Your post progresses very logically and I agree with what you have said. However, the pivotal point is in the interpretations of the original post.

Some readers addressed each as it was written while others used extrapolations to arrive at their point.

The fact remains that it depends on who you are vis a vis and who they are.

the poster that hoped his child would insantly judge a binge drinker is indeed wise and is illustrative of what normally happens on a daily basis.

I see a driver criss crossing on a highay I don't care if he is drunk or sick........

Essentially people have two choices judge or blink and deflate and face the consequences.

Finally based on the simple wording of the original post I beleive those people derserved what they asked for. Now I am going to be real judgmental. Our society has become adept at denial and hence unaccountable for their actions. The old saw is accurate "if you play with fire you can expect to get burned".

[KeepingItReal]

I think I meant "with all things being equal" and no obvious excuses. In other words, the speeder knew he was speeding and didn't need to be speeding. The bank robber knew it was wrong and didn't need to rob a bank. The student was slacking off and knew it could mean failure. The suicide person was tired of living. The overweight person living an unhealthy lifestyle knew the risk and decided to take it.

When an overweight person comes into the ER with a heart attack, don't the people on staff ever wonder, "boy, what was he/she thinking?" Many think the word "deserve" is not the right verb. Give me a verb that you think works better. How about the verb "working"? He/she was working on clogging up their arteries and, sure enough, it worked.
There's always the word "qualified". He/she was knowingly living an unhealthy lifestyle and became qualiied for a heart attack. We can use different words to make it nicer, but the actions and results are the same.


1.How about a guy who just keeps poking and poking a bear until the bear has finally had enough and turns on him and does to him what bears are very well known to do?

2.Was the guy poking the bear responsible for his actions and did he get what he deserved, qualified for, and/or was working for?

3.Did it work for him? He/she knowingly irritated the bear with his poking so did he become qualified for the bear attack?

4.Was the bear justified in doing what he did to the one poking him?

5.Do you think the guy will go poking any more bears or did he not learn anything from what the bear did to him?

6.What about those attacked by irritated bears that were irritated by others but never did anything themselves to irritate the bears?

7.Did those innocent attacked by the bear anyway deserve, qualify, or work for what happened to them?

[Villages PL]

1.How about a guy who just keeps poking and poking a bear until the bear has finally had enough and turns on him and does to him what bears are very well known to do?

2.Was the guy poking the bear responsible for his actions and did he get what he deserved, qualified for, and/or was working for?

3.Did it work for him? He/she knowingly irritated the bear with his poking so did he become qualified for the bear attack?

4.Was the bear justified in doing what he did to the one poking him?

5.Do you think the guy will go poking any more bears or did he not learn anything from what the bear did to him?

6.What about those attacked by irritated bears that were irritated by others but never did anything themselves to irritate the bears?

7.Did those innocent attacked by the bear anyway deserve, qualify, or work for what happened to them?


Note: The above analogy is fiction.

[KeepingItReal]

Note: The above analogy is fiction.

Really, think about it some more....outside the box....


(Put another way, an analogy is a comparison between two different things in order to highlight some point of similarity. As Freud suggested, an analogy won't settle an argument, but a good one may help to clarify the issues.)

[Villages PL]

Responses in Bold How does one know?

I can give you a few examples if you don't mind a long story:

My neighbor, a smoker, got a heart attack and was taken to the hospital. He was in intensive care for a long time, I think about 10 days. During that time he was unable to smoke but he said he didn't mind. He said he didn't crave it. When he came home from the hospital I had a chance to talk to him out in the yard. And guess what, he was smoking a cigarette! I asked, "if you didn't crave it while you were in the hospital, why are you smoking again?" He said, "oh, I just enjoy smoking."

I didn't say a word about it....just moved on to another subject. But I was thinking to myself it wouldn't be long before he would have a second heart attack. And, sure enough, within about 2 months he had a second heart attack and no one was around to help him. His wife found him dead on the floor when she came home.

Another neighbor, an obese man, had a stroke at age 50. His wife told me that he wanted the same food everyday for dinner. He wanted fried hamburgers, peppers, onions, and potatoes. All fried. This was every day. So he had his stroke and went to the hospital. From there he went to a nursing home to recover. He was in the nursing home for several months. Finally, he was well enough to come home and I had a chance to talk to him out in his yard. Being interested in health, I asked if his doctor advised him to be on a special diet. He said, "yes, but there's no way I'm going to eat that diet, I have to have my hamburgers". Actually, his exact words were, "heck no", he wouldn't eat a special diet.

Again, I thought it wouldn't be long before he would have another stroke. And within a few months he had another stroke. This one was worse and his wife told me she doubted that he would ever come home again.

Need more? I have lots of these stories. :laugh: These people who don't care are so predictable!

[Villages PL]

Really, think about it some more....outside the box....


(Put another way, an analogy is a comparison between two different things in order to highlight some point of similarity. As Freud suggested, an analogy won't settle an argument, but a good one may help to clarify the issues.)

I'm way ahead of you. That's why I said, "it's a fiction."

[Villages PL]

We can all come up with anecdotal stories like yours above, but they don't PROVE causality. Here's a case study from the New England Journal of Medicine about an 88 year old man that ate between 20-30 eggs/day and had normal cholesterol levels.

Your original question was: "How does one know, I've seen people smoking in their 90s, for example. I wasn't sure what you were looking for, so I gave anecdotes. What a waste of time that turned out to be! I agree that anecdotal stories don't prove causality.

Of course, when it comes to health, almost anything is possible. The science of health is not like math-science where 2 + 2 always equals 4.

Your case study from the New England Journal of Medicine, about an 88 year old man, was interesting. But this is no surprise to me that he could have normal cholesterol levels. Yes, individual responses can vary widely. Most people have a number of cholesterol receptors, the purpose of which is to remove excess cholesterol. Some people have more receptors than others so they can consume more cholesterol and maintain normal levels.

Then you had a quote about the 100 year old woman who smokes and drinks. Well, that's an anecdote too. Tell me what that proves.

[Villages PL]

Here's a perspective on these issues from an Eastern viewpoint, as the so-called Fifth Remembrance of the Buddha: "My actions are my only true belongings. I cannot escape the consequences of my actions. My actions are the ground upon which I stand."

A question to those who said they like the above quote: Do you think it also applies to diet and exercise? Or will you choose to apply it selectively?

I cannot escape the consequences of my actions: I believe this absolutely applies to diet and exercise. And lifestyle in general.

[KeepingItReal]

I'm way ahead of you. That's why I said, "it's a fiction."

I would have to disagree, but I'm done, Gerbil on a wheel, NOT.

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[Villages PL]

I wasn't trying to prove anything other than there are no absolutes when it comes to the relationship between lifestyle and person's health. The best we can hope to do is make good choices that lessen risk.

Yes, I agree, it's all about trying to reduce risk.

It's nice that we agree on that very important point. If I may, I would just like to mention some second thoughts I have had about the study of the 88 year old man who eats 25 eggs per day. That study has something important to say about cholesterol and "mechanisms of adaptation" but has nothing to say about what the expectations would be for one's overall health status.

[zonerboy]

This is a thread with an agenda!
"Deserve" is a very emotionally loaded word and should not be confused with cause and effect.
A guy continually pokes a bear with a stick until the bear has had enough and mauls the guy. Was the mauling a consequence of the poking? Definitely yes. Did the guy "deserve" to be mauled? That's an entirely different question. Does anyone deserve to be mauled by a bear?
A heavy smoker suffers a heart attack, is advised to quit smoking, but refuses. He shortly there after has a second heart attack, this time fatal. Was his second heart attack caused by his heavy smoking. I would say probably yes. Did he "deserve" to have a second heart attack (or deserve to die and be found on the floor by his wife)? Once again, this is an entirely different question.
Indeed, actions (and choices) have consequences.
But whether or not these consequences are "deserved" is a moral question. And not a question of logic.
IMNSHO

[Villages PL]

No. I don't believe that it's "all about trying to reduce risk." That paints with too broad a brushstroke for my liking.

Since the subject we were discussing was diet and smoking (25 eggs per day etc..), I was refering to dietary and smoking risks. This thread isn't about drag racing so I won't comment on that.


Read the letters that followed the article. Some of those addressed his overall diet.

Thanks, but even if he enjoyed good health, the health part of it would be anecdotal.

[Villages PL]

This is a thread with an agenda!

Show me a thread without an agenda.

"Deserve" is a very emotionally loaded word and should not be confused with cause and effect.
A guy continually pokes a bear with a stick until the bear has had enough and mauls the guy. Was the mauling a consequence of the poking? Definitely yes. Did the guy "deserve" to be mauled? That's an entirely different question. Does anyone deserve to be mauled by a bear?

Well, I believe when I posed MY question I used the word "knowing". "If I live an unhealthy lifestyle knowing that it will likely lead to poor health, do I deserve poor health ?"

If you don't like the word "deserve" because it's emotionally loaded, give me a better word. Now I wonder: "Can you change it to the point where all of the emotion is whitewashed out of it?"

[pooh]

IF diet seems to be one way of possibly insuring good health...and we choose to
eat in a way you determine is an unacceptable way to eat, then we as adults must determine if it is a risk we want to take and live with. I may be incorrect but, I am of the opinion that you espouse eating a certain way as the only way to achieve that insurance. Others, myself included, feel that while diet plays an important part in our well being, other factors also play a role in achieving and maintaining good health/well being. In addition to nutritional nourishment, individuals need emotional nourishment and that could be more important for some. The word moderation means something different for you, for me. Do you need specific numbers, amounts, types, times and can't accept the concept of moderation? Granted moderation for one could mean something totally different to another, but we all live in a way that is comfortable and acceptable for ourselves and are beyond being told how to live, how to eat, how to believe. While you ask for discussion, there seems little to discuss at this point. I don't mean to sound harsh or condescending, it's just my opinion and I'm expressing my feelings.

[zonerboy]

Yes, we all make choices about how we want to live our lives, and, indeed, we all must endure the consequences of our choices. So let's try to insure that our choices are "informed choices".
That's all we can do.

[Jhooman]

Here's a perspective on these issues from an Eastern viewpoint, as the so-called Fifth Remembrance of the Buddha: "My actions are my only true belongings. I cannot escape the consequences of my actions. My actions are the ground upon which I stand."

Wow! I love this viewpoint.

I believe taking responsibility for my actions, gives me complete freedom emotionally and spiritually.

[Villages PL]

IF diet seems to be one way of possibly insuring good health...and we choose to
eat in a way you determine is an unacceptable way to eat, then we as adults must determine if it is a risk we want to take and live with.

I agree but doubt that the average person fully understands the risks.


I may be incorrect but, I am of the opinion that you espouse eating a certain way as the only way to achieve that insurance.

I think that's a misconception that many have. Yes, I try to put forth the "best" way that I know how to eat, an ideal based on the results of scientific studies. But there can be some individual differences. I have recommended some books that allow for some animal protein and others that don't. It all depends on how serious a person is and what the person is trying to accomplish. Sometimes it's a step by step process whereby a person can start at one level and eventually work up to a higher level.


Others, myself included, feel that while diet plays an important part in our well being, other factors also play a role in achieving and maintaining good health/well being. In addition to nutritional nourishment, individuals need emotional nourishment and that could be more important for some.

Of course other factors play a role, have I ever said otherwise? I have recommended exercise and meditation. If you feel you need emotional nourishment that's fine. Go for it! I just don't want anyone to think that it takes the place of good dietary nutrition, because it doesn't.


The word moderation means something different for you, for me. Do you need specific numbers, amounts, types, times and can't accept the concept of moderation? Granted moderation for one could mean something totally different to another, but we all live in a way that is comfortable and acceptable for ourselves and are beyond being told how to live, how to eat, how to believe.

If you are beyond being told anything, why do you bother participating? Anyway, refresh my memory, what have I told people they must do? Are you referring to what I have said in previous threads?

While you ask for discussion, there seems little to discuss at this point. I don't mean to sound harsh or condescending, it's just my opinion and I'm expressing my feelings.

Well, I agree, it's usually not much of a discussion for those who resent any suggestions regarding how to live a healthy lifestyle. People who suggest "moderation" think they are adding something substantive to the discussion but, in reality, they are adding nothing unless they can define it or set some boundaries of some sort. Otherwise, it's so subjective that it means nothing.

[Villages PL]

My point was that there is risk in everything we do. You take a risk everytime you drive an extra mile to buy soy milk. ;)

Well then, we agreee. (But no soy for me, thanks.)


What it shows is that there isn't a direct link between one's diet and one's health. Too many external factors influence longevity. For example, I can eat all of the proper things that will supposedly diminish risks associated with poor diet, but if I hang out by the pool too much and develop melanoma, all that was for naught.

Who said there must be a "direct link"? There may or may not be a direct link for each individual. I thought we agreed that there are certain prudent diets that reduce risk. And, to a large extent, it's determined by large long-term population studies. And as far as hanging out at the pool and getting melanoma, there is a way to reduce that risk.


I'm a scientist by profession. The only ABSOLUTE I know is that there are no ABSOLUTES.

I don't recall ever saying that there are absolutes, just that there is a whole range of risky behavior and it's best to try to reduce risk as best we can, based on the results of scientific studies.

[pooh]

IF diet seems to be one way of possibly insuring good health...and we choose to
eat in a way you determine is an unacceptable way to eat, then we as adults must determine if it is a risk we want to take and live with.

I agree but doubt that the average person fully understands the risks.

You are making an assumption that individuals are totally unaware of "risks".....and in fact, not all who eat in a fashion deemed unacceptable by those you feel offer a better way to eat, suffer ill health. Something works for those people in spite of what might be considered poor dietary choices.


I may be incorrect but, I am of the opinion that you espouse eating a certain way as the only way to achieve that insurance.

I think that's a misconception that many have. Yes, I try to put forth the "best" way that I know how to eat, an ideal based on the results of scientific studies. But there can be some individual differences. I have recommended some books that allow for some animal protein and others that don't. It all depends on how serious a person is and what the person is trying to accomplish. Sometimes it's a step by step process whereby a person can start at one level and eventually work up to a higher level.

I wonder just how many think it is a misconception, VPL.

Some of the studies are quite old, have they been duplicated? Studies are just that, studies and results presented are those of whomever wrote them.



Others, myself included, feel that while diet plays an important part in our well being, other factors also play a role in achieving and maintaining good health/well being. In addition to nutritional nourishment, individuals need emotional nourishment and that could be more important for some.

Of course other factors play a role, have I ever said otherwise? I have recommended exercise and meditation. If you feel you need emotional nourishment that's fine. Go for it! I just don't want anyone to think that it takes the place of good dietary nutrition, because it doesn't.

Have you said otherwise? I will admit I have not read every post you write, but I have no doubt that you do recommend exercise and meditation. What seems missing from your writings is the understanding of emotional connections between people and how it contributes to the well being of individuals. This emotional component when supported by friends and family, contributes much to health.

The word moderation means something different for you, for me. Do you need specific numbers, amounts, types, times and can't accept the concept of moderation? Granted moderation for one could mean something totally different to another, but we all live in a way that is comfortable and acceptable for ourselves and are beyond being told how to live, how to eat, how to believe.

If you are beyond being told anything, why do you bother participating? Anyway, refresh my memory, what have I told people they must do? Are you referring to what I have said in previous threads?

Why do I participate in this discussion? Like a moth to a flame, I guess....:D. Training in science draws me to threads that might involve discussion where I have some knowledge. What have you told people they must do? It's more like telling them that if they don't do....well, the consequences will be, let's see....nasty. In some instance, poor food choices can result in poor health, but not necessarily and not always.

While you ask for discussion, there seems little to discuss at this point. I don't mean to sound harsh or condescending, it's just my opinion and I'm expressing my feelings.

Well, I agree, it's usually not much of a discussion for those who resent any suggestions regarding how to live a healthy lifestyle. People who suggest "moderation" think they are adding something substantive to the discussion but, in reality, they are adding nothing unless they can define it or set some boundaries of some sort. Otherwise, it's so subjective that it means nothing.

The point I've been trying to make, and obviously not successfully, is in spite of what you or I think, adults will do as they wish, they've reached the age they are by eating, exercising, playing, laughing during those years. If it works for them, they will continue doing what they've always done. If they feel they need to do something differently, then they will, but nothing you or I say will make an impact if it's not what the individual wants to do.
It appears that you look at life in a more analytical manner than others on this board and that may always be a reason for differences in attitudes regarding this discussion.

[DougB]

I think you get what you get, whether you deserve it or not.

[Villages PL]

You are making an assumption that individuals are totally unaware of "risks".....and in fact, not all who eat in a fashion deemed unacceptable by those you feel offer a better way to eat, suffer ill health. Something works for those people in spite of what might be considered poor dietary choices.

The word "totally" is your word not mine. Yes, some eat a poor diet and do fairly well for a time. But statistics show that we in the U.S. have high disease rates. And 63% of people are overweight or obese.


Some of the studies are quite old, have they been duplicated? Studies are just that, studies and results presented are those of whomever wrote them.

You pay more attention to what I say than most and even you are still asking about the studies. Yes, there are health and longevity studies that began in the 1930s and have been repeated and repeated over and over again. You have training in science and don't belive in scientific studies?



Why do I participate in this discussion? Like a moth to a flame, I guess....:D. Training in science draws me to threads that might involve discussion where I have some knowledge. What have you told people they must do? It's more like telling them that if they don't do....well, the consequences will be, let's see....nasty. In some instance, poor food choices can result in poor health, but not necessarily and not always.

I have never said to anyone that if they don't do what I say they will get XYZ diseases. What I have said is that I eat a certain diet because I'm trying to prevent cancer and other degenerative diseases. That's different than telling someone that they will get something nasty. However, if someone asks me directly about risks, I will tell them.


The point I've been trying to make, and obviously not successfully, is in spite of what you or I think, adults will do as they wish, they've reached the age they are by eating, exercising, playing, laughing during those years. If it works for them, they will continue doing what they've always done. If they feel they need to do something differently, then they will, but nothing you or I say will make an impact if it's not what the individual wants to do.
It appears that you look at life in a more analytical manner than others on this board and that may always be a reason for differences in attitudes regarding this discussion.

I was about 65 when someone on another website (message board) recommended that I read, "The Okinawa Program", and I did. Then, on that same website, someone else recommended, "The China Study", and I read that too. And that was not a website for health issues alone. Those two books led me to change my diet. Why is it that I am always open to new ideas when most others are not? Now I hope to find out more about the diet of Seventh Day Adventists who enjoy good health and have an average life expectancy of 88 years compared to our 78 years.

[pooh]

I've read about a study involving 7th Day Adventists. Loma Linda University in CA reported on a study involving approximately 70,000 participants. There was a 12% lower risk of death for vegetarians compared to non-vegetarians.

Plant based diets have been linked to a lower likelihood for heart disease, why is not yet understood. May be substances meat contains...saturated fat, the compound carnitine, cholesterol that are the culprits. Is it the plant foods, the type, the amounts, less meat, or a combination? Women did not show the same benifits as men.

A British study of the vegetarian diet in over 47,250 participants did not find the same mortality results. American vegetarians consume more fiber and vitamin C, this could be a factor for such difference between the two studies.

Generally speaking, people who are vegetarians may be married, be more educated, older, thinner. They more likely exercised, do not smoke and may not drink. Researchers noted that all of these are also factors that could play a role in their lower risk of death.

It’s not clear whether avoiding red meat and processed meats plays a role in boosting life or whether the foods that vegetarians are eating lowers their risk of dying compared with non-vegetarians, said Dr. Michael Orlich, the program director of the preventive medicine residency at Loma Linda University.
He said he is planning a study to help identify which foods are explaining these results.

Eating plant foods didn’t seem to protect participants against cancer, which struck both the vegetarians and non-vegetarians in roughly equal measure.

Those in the study were given a questionnaire to assess their diet. Researchers found that 5,548 people were vegans, 21,177 were vegetarians that ate dairy and egg products, 7,194 were vegetarians that included fish in their diets and 4,031 were semi-vegetarian, which includes eating meat infrequently. The rest were meat eaters.

Studies are just that, studies. They lead to more research, help draw conclusions and could lead us on our way towards a better understanding of who we are, how we "work," how and why certain processes take place.

While I have no doubt we reap what we sow, I will again postulate that a totally vegetarian or vegan diet is not the only factor to longevity....and researchers, too, are still seeking such information.

[Uptown Girl]

Excellent post, Pooh. Excellent.
:BigApplause:

[Villages PL]

Hi Pooh,

I read the same report on the Adventist News Network. But I'm going to try to simplify things. First of all, I read from a reliable source, Gerontology Research Group (GRG), that Seventh-day Adventists have an average life expectancy of 88 years, compared to our 78 years. That's quite a difference, so let's see what might explain it.

Well, guess what? The very first line of the report explains it! Basically, (in my own words), it said the following: Vegetarians live longer than those who eat meat, according to a study of 73,308 Seventh-day Adventists.

The study was funded by the United States' National Institutes of Health. It doesn't get any better than that.

The report comes with the following caveat: They eat a plant based diet to varing degrees and a vegetarian diet is not automatically a healthy diet. For example, some might choose to eat deep fried foods.

Other ways to degrade a plant based diet would be to eat a lot of highly-refined processed foods, thereby lowering the diets nutritional value, and puting on excess weight.

I don't think, as you do, that it's a big mystery needing a lot of further research. It fits in nicely with many of the other long-term, large-scale studies that have been done, including studies of the effects of "calorie restricted" diets.

[pooh]

Where is this report VPL? I can't seem to find it. When did they collect this data? Granted they may live longer, but remember that not all are vegetarians, there are other aspects of their lives that differ from an "average" American's. Maybe no drinking, no caffeine, no smoking, an active lifestyle, contribute some part in this seemingly longer lifespan...;)

[rubicon]

I may have missed it but what people have been addressing has been consequences from bad behavior.

Let's turn it around.

Do people deserve what they get if they invest wisely, attempt to maximize there profits, win a lottery, invent a widget, etc. if so then why does it seem the government punishes them so highy with taxes, criticize them as being greedy, immoral, etc....You know where I am heading here

[pooh]

Maybe it's the male dominant, woman submissive lifestyle <ducking> LOL
:1rotfl: :duck::duck: :1rotfl:

[graciegirl]

Say Good night, Gracie.

[Villages PL]

Where is this report VPL? I can't seem to find it. When did they collect this data? Granted they may live longer, but remember that not all are vegetarians, there are other aspects of their lives that differ from an "average" American's. Maybe no drinking, no caffeine, no smoking, an active lifestyle, contribute some part in this seemingly longer lifespan...;)

Pooh, you can find this report by searching the following: "U.S. Study of Adventists finds vegetarians live longer"

You will see a big picture of vegetables taken in a supermarket and above the picture it says: "People who eat a vegetarian diet live longer than those who eat meat....."

The report was dated Jun. 4, 2013.

A small fraction of those in the study (4,031) ate meat infrequently.

You state that there may be other differences. Yes, in general they live a prudent lifestyle. Of course, everyone knows that smoking is bad for your health. Excess alcohol consumption is bad too. What does that prove?
Are you trying to minimize the health benefits of eating vegetarian?

[Villages PL]

I may have missed it but what people have been addressing has been consequences from bad behavior.

Let's turn it around.

Do people deserve what they get if they invest wisely, attempt to maximize there profits, win a lottery, invent a widget, etc. if so then why does it seem the government punishes them so highy with taxes, criticize them as being greedy, immoral, etc....You know where I am heading here

Very good point, rubicon. Everyone seems to think in terms of negative results. I have been investing wisely, taking calculated risks, for well over two decades and I have had tremendous results. I worked at it and took the risks, so I feel I deserve the rewards. Over many years I have probably read over 100 books on health and nutrition and I usually put what I learn into practice. So at age 72 I enjoy excellent (drug free) health and I think I deserve it.

However, I don't deserve to win the lottery because I have never bought any lottery tickets. :)

[pooh]

Pooh, you can find this report by searching the following: "U.S. Study of Adventists finds vegetarians live longer"

You will see a big picture of vegetables taken in a supermarket and above the picture it says: "People who eat a vegetarian diet live longer than those who eat meat....."

The report was dated Jun. 4, 2013.

A small fraction of those in the study (4,031) ate meat infrequently.

You state that there may be other differences. Yes, in general they live a prudent lifestyle. Of course, everyone knows that smoking is bad for your health. Excess alcohol consumption is bad too. What does that prove?
Are you trying to minimize the health benefits of eating vegetarian?

Thank you for the info, I'll take a look in a bit. Am I trying to minimize the health benefits? No, not at all, I'm trying to validate exactly why some who eat a plant based diet do well...and why some who eat a diet with animal protein, also do well. Often times there are interactions not readily apparent that bring about results. One day, soon, we will know exactly why different diets can bring good health. You're not disputing that there are individuals that are healthy, fit and happy on diets that have animal protein and fats in them, are you....:)

[Villages PL]

Thank you for the info, I'll take a look in a bit. Am I trying to minimize the health benefits? No, not at all, I'm trying to validate exactly why some who eat a plant based diet do well...and why some who eat a diet with animal protein, also do well. Often times there are interactions not readily apparent that bring about results. One day, soon, we will know exactly why different diets can bring good health. You're not disputing that there are individuals that are healthy, fit and happy on diets that have animal protein and fats in them, are you....:)

No, I'm not disputing that there are some individuals that are healthy, fit and happy on diets that have animal protein and fats in them. Just as I am not disputing that there are some individuals who are healthy, fit and happy smoking cigarettes. Anything is possible when you bring it down to the level of the individual. Just like it's possible to win the lottery.

But if you look at large-scale population studies, in general, the less animal protein they eat the better off they seem to be regarding health and longevity. That's what I have noticed but, off-hand, I don't recall any comprehensive study that compares the overall lifestyles of various regions.