anyone else who thinks their shit doesn't stink.

I had a heart attack at 39. I try not to be an asshole about it but I don't coddle people who smoke. If they breach the subject I will explain how stupid and nasty an addiction it is.

I'm allergic to it.

However, new converts to anything are notoriously judgmental. It takes them a while to become human again.

What this study failed to take into account is that judgmental people look for causes. Some are religious busybodies. Some eat organic food and sneer at stuff raised with chemical fertilizer and pesticides as poison.

BTW, my own approach to heart patients who still smoked was very different. I'd ask them if they already knew all the reasons they needed to quit and I'd watch them tense up and get defensive and say "yeah" through clenched teeth. I'd tell them to consider themselves lectured, it was part of my job, and change the subject.

After they'd chewed on it for a couple of hours, they'd call me back and ask me what sort of help was available to help them quit. That's when I could do my job.

She died of lung cancer and had smoked for about 50 years of her life.

It was a horrid way to die -- especially when they were pumping blood from her lungs!

This tends to shut them up fast even if they get pissed at me for telling them about my late mother.

Smoking sucks and it is not the fault of the smoker. It is the fault of the government and the media for pushing cigarettes en mass. They still do it today but at least you do not see ads for smoking on the teevee every 2 minutes. It isn't KOOL anymore I suppose.

lung cancer isn't limited to people who smoke.

I'm not saying smoking doesn't case health issues, but I do think far too many things are blamed on smoking and not enough effort is given to finding more legitimate causes of cancer.

We all know that some people who smoke don't get cancer and some people who don't get cancer. There has to be some other agent at work.

That said, I stick by my assertion that SOME people who convert to a differing lifestyle can be A-One jerks because they smugly assume everyone else who still smokes/drinks/picks their nose, etc. either has no will power or wants to even quit that behavior.

:/

Did I say anything that wasn't true?

The World Health Organization has said that smoking is declining while instances of lung cancer is on the increase. Obviously, something else BESIDES smoking is causing that. The WHO thinks it's a combination of pollution, poor eating, lack of exercise and lack of access to health care. This is WORLDWIDE.

My issue is that we need to find out what the hell is causing this and save lives!

It isn't either/or.

some information from the WHO.

It is becoming and either/or.

I think some think their smoke don't smell..



Tikki

Yes, I smoke. Yes, I know it's bad for me. I don't need any assholes telling me how bad it is. I'm considerate, and only smoke in the designated leper colonies.

So leave me the f*** alone!!!

Bake

I don't like these generalizations (in general)! Reality is much more complex...and there are judgmental jerks everywhere.

Am I missing something in this?

is kinda the behavior they were pointing out.

You can be quite ethical and not eat organic food.

Likewise you can eschew all unhealthy food, be a complete vegetarian, avoid smoking and drinking and still be kinda a douche. Not to godwin the thread but case in point: Hitler did all those things.

douche"

Your point is well taken, though.

unless it happens to be something I'm growing - I don't pay extra for it in the store.

But I do recognize that it's the more ethical choice (and also that it's completely not affordable for the general public).
Same with being a vegetarian. I eat meat, I recognize that it's a vice for a number of reasons.

It seems completely predictable to me anyway that people who make choices based on ethics in one part of their lives would be more conscious about ethics across all aspects of their lives, and would talk about it - and would maybe judge others for making unethical decisions.

I think the point still stands though that organic =/= ethical. It's a personal choice and in the west is typically a factor of having a lot of disposable income.

I'm uncomfortable ascribing ethical values to choices that are very much dependent on having money.

/I only eat fair trade caviar on my gold-plated yacht. Yes, I do realize that this makes me better than you.

Eat seasonally and canning and freezing when the vegetables cost the least are the best ways to eating organic cheaply. Staying away from processed foods and little or no meat is important, too.

There are sacrifices, Asparagus only in the spring, stone fruit, corn, & tomatoes in late summer, root vegetables in winter, etc. but I think food taste better in season anyway.

but not everyone lives in close proximity to A) a farmers market, B) a decent grocery store or C) a patch of clear land they can garden.

Likewise not everyone has large spaces to freeze veggies for the off season.

And even then organic on average costs more:

http://eartheasy.com/article_high_cost_organic_food.htm

And really how could it not? You remove a number of factors designed to increase yields and produce a small niche market with a limited (and largely affluent) client base.

Is a rude thing to say. There are plenty of people who 1) eat organic and are not rich, and 2) do not believe they are better people in relation to other people for doing so.

that judgmental traits are often associated with an organic diet.

Not that there is a perfect correlation between eating organic and being a douche. Many people are not at all like that. But apparently more are.

And in the west, at this moment, organic is primarily a choice for the affluent or at least comfortable. For the vast majority of the very poor it is not an realistic option.

Your circumstances may be different. And yes a dirt-poor farmer in the backwoods of west virginia (for instance) could live a technically organic life without A) realizing or B) being rich. That is however not descriptive of the average poor person in the US.

But rather they showed people pictures of organic food.

Again, as I said below in another post:

This is a wierd study

Convince a person that they are making the more moral choice (in this case getting them to associate with "good" foods) and they will tend to be more judgmental. That principle has been known for a while now. This is merely the first study, that I've seen at least, associating it with organic food rather than say religion or doing charity work.

"Oh, you eat pork? Well my religion says that's evil and disgusting. But whatever works for you, heathen!" There's no logic to it, just the way people work.

"What kind of organic food were they shown? A slab of tofu? An uncooked eggplant? A pile of sprouts? Perhaps the residual negative reaction was because they were shown pictures of food that for many people trigger distaste or deprivation (only vegetables, perhaps?) "

Distaste is not generally associated with a feeling of moral superiority.

"What would have happened if they had shown pictures of only conventionally grown vegetables to one group and a totally organic Thanksgiving feast to another? "

They would have put together a terrible study. You would need a control group to suss out whether they were responding to the fact that the food was organic, or whether it looked tasty. That's what they did in this study.

"So the test group may not have been organic food eaters just that they were told that the picture was of organic food. "

If anything that makes the results even more damning. They weren't even of the population that self-selected based on this. Just average people shown pictures for a few minutes. If that's all it takes then the effect would be even more pronounced among actual organic food eaters.


"Why do the researchers assume organic food does not mean comfort food. A person can certainly make brownies and cookies from organic ingredients "

Maybe because they were associating morality (choosing good healthy foods) with judgmentalness. Eating brownies, even if it's fair trade cocoa, isn't exactly a health food.

It could have been food that those particular people ordinarily find distasteful and it put them in a cranky mood and less apt to be helpful or generous. It could have been pictures of plain unadorned raw vegetables. If the standard was healthy food (and the article doesn't state this), the type of food shown in the pictures could have been unappealing to those TWENTY test subject who, for all we know, rarely eat vegetables.

Also, how in the world could they have measured a persons morality superiority based on the influence of a picture? Did the subjects claim that felt morally superior after looking at pictures? Does looking at a picture of Gandhi give one an inflated sense of self and thus less apt to be generous?

Again, this is a ridiculous study.

I've found the Lord, I'm all messed up on the Lord.



Old Cheech-n-Chong bit.

Every fall we raked up leaves, piled them on the garden, wet them down and tilled them in in the spring. We kept a compost heap which we added two special items; my mother would do some work at a large hotel in the area during tourist season and bring home big bags of egg shells and my father would bring home bags of clam shells from local clam bakes every now and then. They got thrown in with the compost. When my Dad and I went fishing we wrapped the remains in layers of newspaper and bury them between the rows in the garden. My father used baking soda, soap tobacco and other simple compounds for the very few pests we might encounter. The cellar had shelves filled with canned goods and the chest freezer was filled every fall.

My father did these things because he grew up on a farm and learned from his grandpa who game out of Galacia, Poland. They weren't hippies; they were poor and found simple ways to farm that were in the end the most effective methods.

I fully support simple organic methods but I dislike the "Organic Movement". It is like "Amish Made" in my area where con men slap that word on just about anything just to sell something. The word organic as a label isn't trustworthy and as you noted it is being co-opted by young hipsters who watch the food network and take it as gospel.

You're fat and dumb!

Oh yeah, well your healthy and, and, and. Whats the word for being smart?

You can be smart and judgmental. You can also be quite stupid and be judgmental.

It is possible to be healthy and make these personal decisions and also not be a jerk about it.

And then we have stories/studies from years back linking intelligence and one's religiousness..


I guess somebody is just trying to put all the dots together LOL

Or people who choose to define themselves by their diet tend to be judgemental folks.

I imagine it's much the same as those who refuse to eat X for religious reasons. There are some who are doing it solely for themselves. But humans being humans there are also a lot who are doing is specifically so they can condemn others for *not* doing it.

That really has NOTHING to do with morality -- more like self-interest and self-preservation.

The "study" was done by an assistant Psych prof who has trouble with language: “We found that the organic people judged much harder, compared to the control or comfort-food groups,” Eskine told “Today.”

I can't say that organic food has anything to do with it.

They were judgmental before the first bite of organic food crossed their lips. Not that organic foods, or any foods are capable of making a person judgmental, brilliant, altruistic, or anything else.

Studies like this piss me off to no end. It goes hand-in-hand with the ones that claim that organic foods have the same nutrients as non-organic. Ummm...No shit, Sherlock. They have the same damn nutrients, unless you consider pesticides, fungicides, shellac/wax coatings, and transplanted genes to be "nutrients". You have to wonder who gives these people the grant money to do these "studies".

With anything that functions as a status marker, you find the most status-conscious people adopting it. Status-conscious people tend to be assholes, putting down those they consider low-status & vaunting their own supposed high status.

Ergo, people who eat organic more likely to be assholes. Upper-middle to rich ones, to boot.

eating organic when I was the poorest I had ever been in my adult life. If you eat seasonal produce, little processed food, and little or no meat, it is not difficult to eat cheaply and organic.

Organic tomatoes that might be $3-$4 a pound in the spring will be $.79 a lb. at the end of summer. There is also the bruised bin for 50%-75% off and the produce is great for canning or freezing.

And we've been doing it for 20 plus years.

And the most status conscious people I know eat fast/processed food all the time.

The people who pick up their CSA shares from my house every week are fair from upper - middle to rich. Most of them ride bikes to work and have income levels similar to mine.

So, no. I think you're wrong.

I not surprised this appeared on the "Today" show.

I would bet the same results would result from any situation where the participants had a superior feeling about themselves and thereby more inclined to "pat themselves on the back for their moral behavior." For example:

How would Christian fundamentalists or corporate CEOs score?
What about Wall Street bankers and brokers?

Singling out consumers of organic foods reeks of an agenda by the "researchers."

Check out this report about a new feature on the "Today Show"--

Unilever Signs On as Sponsor of Today Show's 'Cooking School'

MSNBC-owned TodayShow.com has launched a new recipe site and mobile application, backed by Unilever as the exclusive sponsor.

Today Show host Matt Lauer promoted the new food and recipe site, dubbed Cooking School, during this morning's show. The site allows visitors to search for previously aired “Today Kitchen” segments, look up recipes, and learn cooking tips and techniques not shown on the Today Show or other popular cooking programs.

As part of the one-year deal, Unilever brands like Bertolli, Country Crock, Hellmann’s, Ragu and I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter will appear in video segments and recipes shown on the site.

--more--
http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/unilever-signs-sponsor-today-shows-cooking-school-106935

Ingredients for some of it's brands:
"I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" contains artificial flavoring
"Country Crock" has partially-hydrogenated soybean oil and artificial flavor(s)

Do we see a pattern here?

So, denigrate organic consumers as "self-righteous" in order to make your unhealthy brands more appealing to the show's viewers...

They were to busy drooling over the Queen today.

comes from little mom & pop farmers, do you?

And I guess I'm a organic-eating moral jerk for throwing them off my property. 'Specially the prosyletizing idjit that parked on my leachfield.

Edited to add "parked his gas-guzzling ship of a car on my leachfield." I'm also morally superior because I drive an old civic that gets 44mpg highway and I merge my errands to reduce my driving.

There are moral jerks who won't lift a finger for anybody because they're so superior. Whereas this organic food eater once risked life and limb running into traffic to save a runaway toddler from being hit.

You know a study is dumb when John Tesh is quoting from it...

drove a gas-guzzler? Or that you drive a car that gets high mpg?

and the gramps that parked on my leach-field for the purpose of preaching at me a morally superior, fundie jerk.

Sorry if you still don't get the point.

But I'm a healthier jerk

so unsufferable!

Hollywood Royalty and all that those privileges imply.

I was just joking.

Don't I at least get points for honesty?

I just thought this provided a potential explanation! LOL!

We have our share of self-righteous so-and-so's.

Bake

It's a personality thing, IMO. Those most obsessive about what they eat tend to be authoritarian perfectionist types who moralize about other people's lack of perfection.

I've noticed that these types all look very similar, they are tall, skinny, and are very emotionally high-strung and nervous.

We combine the perfect and the imperfect, the sacred and the profane, when it comes to food.

20 people were shown pictures of organic food, 20 people were shown pictures of comfort food (whatever that means) and 20 people were shown pictures of non-organic conventional food.

Although he's not that tall.

It's good beer, but not THAT much better than an ice-cold Blatz.

I'm highly amused by it.

Anyone else see some irony in all the judgmental remarks about how judgmental those other people can be?

Judgmental people may be more inclined to seek out organic foods as part of a holier-than-thou attitude. That doesn't mean that the organic food caused it.

"You don't just buy a coffee, you buy your own redemption from being a consumerist!"

It was the biggest, most beautiful lemon I've ever seen in my life. So I bought it, because I like to put lemon slices in my unsweetened tea. Ironically, I was judgmental of the toxins on lemons before I bought organic. I just had no idea it would be considered a morally superior decision on my part. I just thought it would be a healthier food to put in my tea.

PS: This article did not make me feel guilty for buying organic lemons. Does that make me morally superior?

that I'm a jerk.

Well - fuck you - I think I'll go outside and have a smoke.

I don't bother with DU as often as I did. I need things that give me hope and DU isn't one of them anymore. There are a few people I'm glad to see here though, saying things to make me think I'm not alone.

Goin out for a smoke too.. by myself lol

another stereotype to sway the masses. Christ O' Mighty.... get out of your bubbles...

Last edited Tue Jun 5, 2012, 07:26 PM - Edit history (1)

will make you one too!

that would be wholly understandable....otherwise, IDK really.

The subjects are asked "how much time they would be willing to give to" whatever. That's like asking a teabagger on Social Security how much he hates socialism.

Bill

or, you can eat foods produced by Republican owned mega-corporations if you think that makes you more of an everyman. I'm easy.

After looking at a picture of an organic carrot I
decided I would reduce the time spent helping a "needy stranger"
by 4 minutes.

I was surprised at the accuracy of this research!

as I ran a dog rescue, rescuing thousands of dogs and puppies from the gas chambers or worse in the south.

I also used to drink and smoke, and don't do either anymore, but I don't bother people about that. If you want to kill yourself, that is your business. Animals - they are helpless against us.