• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"It's good for you"

Dinwar said:
Sure, there are exceptions to everything, but when you just start out it's best to assume that the person walking into the doctor's office isn't the 1 in 1,000,000 case.
Click to expand...

If that's true, then how come doctors and nurses ask about allergies? It would seem that standard practice is to accept the fact that there are exceptions and if a person already knows they're one of them, to respect that knowledge. Or, if there's a potential for rare but serious side effects, to alert the patient of the risk, rather than claiming a substance is good for the patient, period.

The OP is talking about people who not only don't seem to accept that there are rare cases, but who specifically reject such cases even when told that the individual is one of them. That would seem to be just the opposite of what's best.
 
imagineaa said:
"It's good for you" seems to be a quite acceptable thing to say....except it's a sweeping statement that therefore cannot be true (in most cases).

"A glass of red wine is good for you." I reply no, it's quite terrible for me and others who have a few of the health problems it is actually bad for. I get this response: :confused: or :rolleyes: or :boggled:, usually followed by an insistence that I'm wrong.

I once followed some medical advice given by a nurse practitioner regarding a certain vitamin and had a medical emergency as a result...all because "it's good for you".

Is there food/drink/nutrient that is always good for you?:D
Click to expand...

Jaffa Cakes!





... and a nice cup 'o' tea.
 
Travis said:
If there is anything that is always good for you regardless of quantity or concentration we haven't found it yet.

Water + too much too quickly = water intoxication

Oxygen + too much too concentrated in the blood = oxygen toxicity

Sodium + too much = elevated blood pressure, stroke and cardiovascular disease


And those are three things that you absolutely need to live.
Click to expand...

Eat healthy. Exercise regularly. Die anyway.
 
Travis said:
If there is anything that is always good for you regardless of quantity or concentration we haven't found it yet.

Water + too much too quickly = water intoxication

Oxygen + too much too concentrated in the blood = oxygen toxicity

Sodium + too much = elevated blood pressure, stroke and cardiovascular disease


And those are three things that you absolutely need to live.
Click to expand...

Sex.

And no I will not accept any counter argument :D
 
The OP is talking about people who not only don't seem to accept that there are rare cases, but who specifically reject such cases even when told that the individual is one of them.
Click to expand...
I think people are reading too much into these statements. I mean, sure, there may be some people who actually reject things like allergies--however, I believe it's much more likely that the person being told "It's good for you" (which, in my experience, frequently is a child) is rejecting something which they have no known allergy to, and which they have not tried previously (or, having tried it, found it to be beneficial but unpleasant; say, most medicines). In the case of a parent giving OTC medication to a child for a common ailment the parent generally works on the assumption "My child is human; this is designed for humans; therefore, this will work on my child."

If that's true, then how come doctors and nurses ask about allergies? It would seem that standard practice is to accept the fact that there are exceptions and if a person already knows they're one of them, to respect that knowledge.
Click to expand...
For the more common ones, or the more sevear ones, yeah--however,those are not in fact all that rare, and I'd imagine they're not rare at all in hospitals. For highly uncommon conditions, not so much. I mean, my doctor doesn't ask if I have a very mild case of MS when I go for my anual checkup, despite there actually being cases of the disease in my family history. And if I answer "No, I don't have any allergies that I know of" they don't run a battery of tests to see if I'm allergic to things I've never been, and likely never will be, exposed to.

Furthermore, the OP's examples are all anecdotes. Possibly very useful anecdotes (anecdotes are evidence, just not high-quality evidence), but anecdotes none the less. Which means that the OP may in fact be mistaken about their interpretation of the situation. There's medication my uncle takes which causes blinding headachs, but which is in fact good for him (it deals with another, more sevear, issue).

The main issue here isn't arrogance or anything like that--it's scale. "It's good for you" is valid on the 1:500,000 scale. The OP would rather have the 1:25,000 scale. (For those lost, these are geologic map scales--1:500,000 is almost entirely worthless to a geologist, while 1:25,000 is the standard 7.5' USGS quadrangle map, which are VERY commonly used.) Saying that medicine is good for you when you're ill is true, and not in any way arrogant--it's just not at a scale that most of us here would find useful. Some people would, however.
 
imagineaa said:
"A glass of red wine is good for you." I reply no, it's quite terrible for me and others who have a few of the health problems it is actually bad for. I get this response: :confused: or :rolleyes: or :boggled:, usually followed by an insistence that I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about just a saying that usually applies to most people.

I am talking about the insistence after I politely decline their offer and explain it is not good for me. Clinging to wrongness after being presented with evidence is idiotic, and yes it is arrogance. Furthermore, I am the person who has lived with my rare disorder for 42 years & kept myself alive by knowing more than everyone else, frankly.

Plus I happen to be quite educated, a fact that is known to those who insist I'm wrong, and differs from the credentials and knowledge they possess themselves.

I can't imagine how that is not arrogance.
 
Last edited:
Sex.

Oh, what was that? You asking about consuming something?

Ok....oral sex ;)


(Damn..somehow I missed the previous post mentioning sex.
Kinda makes my witty comment not as witty as I hoped it would)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom