Good morning, everybody.

Great question from Facebook.

Somebody says, very unoriginal question.

If an obese person, e.g. with Hashimoto's, has to exercise seven times more for seven hours a day, as chat GPT says, compared to one hour of exercise for a happier person, is it permissible to criticize such fat people?

I don't know, but it seemed that the key question would be what proportion of

fat people would have to exercise impractically so much? Does genie coefficient genetically determine

such impracticalities that determine aesthetics in the happiness of most relationships?

So this is, it's a great, you know, it's not an unoriginal question. It's actually a very

deep question, and it is

kind of central to what is going on in life and societies to all these days. So the general

pattern goes something like this. Propose a rule, and then somebody generally attempts,

I'm not saying you, but in general people try to paralyze you with an exception.

It is a way of making sure or trying to make sure that people don't have certainty.

So disarming your opponent in any moral conflict is really essential.

I mean, in conflicts as a whole, if you could disarm your opponent,

I mean, if you're facing an enemy and you can deny them access to weapons and ammunition,

well, you pretty much win the war, right? So getting people to be disarmed. Disarming people

is foundational to conflict, like dishonest conflict, right? Honest

conflict, you have your reason and you have your evidence and you have your debates and so on.

So bad people want to disarm good people. Now bad people are certain without any particular

reason. They're just certain.

They're operating at a fairly animal-like certainty, right?

...