• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Need for Regulation: Fighting the Obesity Epidemic

What do you think we should do about the Obesity Epidemic?

  • Total voters
    68
Boo Radley said:
AGain, I would not support them taking the money for anything else, so some build in protection would have to be part of it. As for government's role, well, looking to pay for what it has to do is a good idea. We know we will not turn anyone away at the ER. We know obese people are likley to end up there, as well as present other societal problems. being practical and planning ahead is not a bad idea.
Click to expand...

I don't trust the government enough to not take money from the sin tax and use it for something else. They don't have a great track record. And being practical and planning ahead is great and all, but if you give people too much of a cushion, they are going to abuse it.

This whole thing needs to be solved at an earlier stage. There needs to be an intervention in peoples lives when they are younger. How is it that a person can beat their children and lose them, but someone lets their child get obese and nothing happens? How is that not child abuse? If you want government involvement, it seems to me that this is a more logical solution. I would prefer it be handle by the community or others who are involved in that childs life, but sometimes you have to help in other ways.
 
Wake said:
Wait. Hold on a sec.

If we can sin tax nicotine and alcohol, why not also tax truly unhealthy pre-made foods like doughnuts?
Click to expand...

Do non-obese people NOT eat donuts? Will putting the donut shop on a diet (there sales will surely drop) help with obesity? It is not WHICH food, but how much food (calories) is consumed, relative to the calories burned, that makes you obese. A construction worker may eat many donuts and yet gain no fat, since they burn those calories off by working, where a desk worker can gain weight by simply eating as much as a construction worker with the EXACT same diet (source of calories).
 
Chaddelamancha said:
I don't trust the government enough to not take money from the sin tax and use it for something else. They don't have a great track record. And being practical and planning ahead is great and all, but if you give people too much of a cushion, they are going to abuse it.

This whole thing needs to be solved at an earlier stage. There needs to be an intervention in peoples lives when they are younger. How is it that a person can beat their children and lose them, but someone lets their child get obese and nothing happens? How is that not child abuse? If you want government involvement, it seems to me that this is a more logical solution. I would prefer it be handle by the community or others who are involved in that childs life, but sometimes you have to help in other ways.
Click to expand...

And if we don't plan ahead, we have the mess we have right now.

Intervention has to be paid for. And I wouldn't go too far down the child abuse path. Too much can too easily then be added to the list.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Do non-obese people NOT eat donuts? Will putting the donut shop on a diet (there sales will surely drop) help with obesity? It is not WHICH food, but how much food (calories) is consumed, relative to the calories burned, that makes you obese. A construction worker may eat many donuts and yet gain no fat, since they burn those calories off by working, where a desk worker can gain weight by simply eating as much as a construction worker with the EXACT same diet (source of calories).
Click to expand...

I thought about using this kind of analogy, but it just doesn't work. I drink alcohol, but I am not an addict. Yet I still pay the sin tax. Most obese people would fall under the umbrella of addiction when it comes to not just sweets, but food in general.
 
Tucker Case said:
Neither of us are likely to be the ones wording the law, so you are definitely espousing a reliance on faith. Faith in our politicians to word it properly. I have no faith in that occurring.
Click to expand...

True, but we can lobby and read, which means we can either support or resist. Agian, I don't espouse faith. I suggest work and dilgence. I think those are different than faith.
 
Boo Radley said:
True, but we can lobby and read, which means we can either support or resist. Agian, I don't espouse faith. I suggest work and dilgence. I think those are different than faith.
Click to expand...

Having faith in others to do their work in diligence is faith. Unless this can be achieved by a single person, you are espousing faith.
 
Boo Radley said:
And if we don't plan ahead, we have the mess we have right now.

Intervention has to be paid for. And I wouldn't go too far down the child abuse path. Too much can too easily then be added to the list.
Click to expand...

How is it not abuse? It is damaging the child physically and emotionally. So we are just supposed to plan ahead for a rise in morbidly obese people? Heck, we are still trying to catch up on old people living longer!
 
Chaddelamancha said:
How is it not abuse? It is damaging the child physically and emotionally. So we are just supposed to plan ahead for a rise in morbidly obese people? Heck, we are still trying to catch up on old people living longer!
Click to expand...

Living within an accepted societal construct is not abuse. More are lost than willfully doing wrong.
 
Tucker Case said:
Having faith in others to do their work in diligence is faith. Unless this can be achieved by a single person, you are espousing faith.
Click to expand...

I believe I included us in this. We have to do our part.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
I thought about using this kind of analogy, but it just doesn't work. I drink alcohol, but I am not an addict. Yet I still pay the sin tax. Most obese people would fall under the umbrella of addiction when it comes to not just sweets, but food in general.
Click to expand...

I can be obese, eating EXACTLY the same as anyone else, all I need do is not exercise (or physcally work) as much as another. A construction worker or athlete is not a "food addict" yet they must consume more food (in general) than a desk worker just to maintain their weight and strength. Therefore a fit athlete will pay far more 'food tax' than an obese office worker, especially if the obese office worker is not too picky about what they eat (avoiding the higher taxed items).
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Living within an accepted societal construct is not abuse. More are lost than willfully doing wrong.
Click to expand...

At one point, spanking your child was an accepted societal construct, which is now considered abuse. But that is getting off topic.
 
Tucker Case said:
Because your claim was universal. Only one exception is required to point out that a universal claim is inaccurate.



Gotcha. I can agree with the problem being people eating too much crap. I'm of the belief that any government intervention will exacerbate instead of alleviate the problem. We're in a society that has forsaken the concept of personal responsibility.

The problem is that people who blame their parents for their bad eating habits today are going to be the ones that their own children blame for their bad eating habits tomorrow. In order for the cycle of victimization to end, people have to own up to their own part in things and make the decision to eat healthier, not for their own sake, but for their children's sake. Blaming people for one's own failings doesn't get **** fixed. Owning up to your mistakes and making an effort to change things does.

But I have absolutely no faith in our society to do this.

I've working on a re-imagining of Juvenal's famous "bread and circuses" critique of Roman Society to relate it more to modern US society.

Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our responsibilities; for the People who once upon a time took care of themselves, their children, their homes, — everything, now blame their failings on imaginary boogie men and anxiously hope for just two things: Fast food and Reality TV.

It's a work in progress, but I think it's really starting to get a handle on today's America.
Click to expand...

I dont think were disagreeing on this tuck...I think were both saying the same thing :)
 
Chaddelamancha said:
How is it not abuse? It is damaging the child physically and emotionally. So we are just supposed to plan ahead for a rise in morbidly obese people? Heck, we are still trying to catch up on old people living longer!
Click to expand...

With this kind of attitude then what isn't child abuse? If I look at my kid wrong and he/she starts crying is that child abuse? Could it be considered as such by a group of namby pamby idiots bent on ruling others lives? If I stand my child in a corner is that child abuse? Could it be considered as such by a group of namby pamby idiots bent on ruling others lives? In answer to this last one, yes it can. Several years back a group tried to get "standing in the corner" put on the child abuse list for the CPS here in Idaho.
 
Kal'Stang said:
With this kind of attitude then what isn't child abuse? If I look at my kid wrong and he/she starts crying is that child abuse? Could it be considered as such by a group of namby pamby idiots bent on ruling others lives? If I stand my child in a corner is that child abuse? Could it be considered as such by a group of namby pamby idiots bent on ruling others lives? In answer to this last one, yes it can. Several years back a group tried to get "standing in the corner" put on the child abuse list for the CPS here in Idaho.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is foolish to get the government involved when it isn't needed.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
At one point, spanking your child was an accepted societal construct, which is now considered abuse. But that is getting off topic.
Click to expand...

And when done under that construct, within the accepted boundries, it was not abuse.
 
Tucker Case said:
We also have to have faith that others will do their part as well. If we could do that, we wouldn't even have an obesity epidemic to begin with, though.
Click to expand...

Not faith, but how anythign gets done.
 
Boo Radley said:
And when done under that construct, within the accepted boundries, it was not abuse.
Click to expand...

Seems like a silly line to draw. I punch my child in the face and give them a black eye. That is a no-no. But I can feed my child unhealthy food in great amounts every day and give them juvenile diabetes and that's okay?
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Seems like a silly line to draw. I punch my child in the face and give them a black eye. That is a no-no. But I can feed my child unhealthy food in great amounts every day and give them juvenile diabetes and that's okay?
Click to expand...

You don't want government micro managing. As I said, that line can become rather moveable. As we change, the line changes. But doing what is accepted is not abuse. We need to change first what is accepted. No one sets out to harm the child here. Some merely don't fully understand the consequences. Even on this forum some have suggested that there is no problem.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Seems like a silly line to draw. I punch my child in the face and give them a black eye. That is a no-no. But I can feed my child unhealthy food in great amounts every day and give them juvenile diabetes and that's okay?
Click to expand...

OH MY GOD! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am so sick of this being used being used as an excuse to interfere with peoples lives.
 
Well, within reason, we should care enough about what happens to children that we seek to make the world a little safer.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, within reason, we should care enough about what happens to children that we seek to make the world a little safer.
Click to expand...

Making the world safer for them is one thing. Using every little excuse to interfere in peoples lives is another.

Besides, you coddle and shelter a child too much and they will never learn to stand on their own.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not faith, but how anythign gets done.
Click to expand...

You're not talking about something that has ever actually gotten done, you're talking about something that has never gotten done.

Even still, expecting something to get done simply because that is how things get done is an exercise in faith.

If there was some prior history upon which to place that faith, then that'd be one thing. We're talking about placing one's faith upon something getting done that not only doesn't have a prior history of getting done, but actually has a prior history of getting ****ed up.

that's adding a whole new level of faith into the equation.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Making the world safer for them is one thing. Using every little excuse to interfere in peoples lives is another.

Besides, you coddle and shelter a child too much and they will never learn to stand on their own.
Click to expand...
I don't think Chaddelamancha or most people who advocate some kind of government involvement do so just because they're looking for a way to interfere in people's lives. It's one thing to argue that such intervention is too much involvement, it's another to thing to accuse people of just looking for excuses to interfere in people's lives. The latter is nothing more than just a way to dismiss people's opinions based on an assumption of intent that you can't possibly know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom