Quote:
Originally Posted by modest
Nitack, you seem incapable of thinking two levels deep on this issue.
If person A were to fatally shoot person B with a gun, then it's well-understood that person A killed person B. You are fixated on the bullet—saying that the cause of death is the bullet. You cannot seem to consider the gun that fired the bullet nor the hand that pulled the trigger, nor the person, nor the motives. You're just fixated on the physical cause of death—bullet through torso.
It is completely consistent for a bullet to cause death and for a person to cause death. These things are not mutually exclusive. You have no grounds or reason to object to other people who are examining this issue with greater depth than you are.
The listed side effect of almost all antidepressants is weight gain. Double-blind drug trials examining side effects show marked increase in body mass over placebo
In a double-blind drug trial there is only one variable—the medication. It is then not only appropriate, it is PERTINENT to say "antidepressants cause weight gain". Do you see how this is consistent with the idea of conservation of energy (e.g. calories in / energy out)? Can you think 2 levels deep like this?
~modest |
I am fixated on what is actually happening. Understanding that weight gain can only come from an excess of Calories lets one really start controlling the variables, Calorie input and Calorie expenditure. Saying "this medication will cause me to gain weight" cedes power in the situation to your medication. Saying "this medication will slow my metabolism" keeps the power in your hands, because the next sentence is "so I need to adjust A, B, and C."
I am looking at it from a different angle than you. Using your analogy. You are all fixated on person A, while I am fixated in taking the gun out of his hands.
