The Need for Regulation: Fighting the Obesity Epidemic

Boo Radley said:

Odd they want welfare folks to eat healthy, but not school children. Just seems odd to me. :shrug:

Click to expand...

I'm not saying anyone doesn't want kids to eat healthier, it's just a common sense idea that I think all sides could get by easily.

cpwill said:

As I understand it, it's not even our intake as much as it is our lethargy. WIC doesn't make you exercise for an hour a day.

Click to expand...

Being lethargic can come from eating bad in the first place. Besides that are you really going to try and argue that an average person could eat nothing but bacon and potatoes vs chicken and asparagus and the person eating the second choice wouldn't be better off?

JohnWOlin said:

Being lethargic can come from eating bad in the first place. Besides that are you really going to try and argue that an average person could eat nothing but bacon and potatoes vs chicken and asparagus and the person eating the second choice wouldn't be better off?

Click to expand...

If they ate that and never exercised then they would get fat either way. Any nutritionist will tell you that eating right is only half the battle. You have to get out and be active also.

But either way it is none of your buisness. Its none of mine. Its no ones buisness. Keep out of their kitchens.

JohnWOlin said:

Being lethargic can come from eating bad in the first place. Besides that are you really going to try and argue that an average person could eat nothing but bacon and potatoes vs chicken and asparagus and the person eating the second choice wouldn't be better off?

Click to expand...

I'm reading "Born to Run" right now - a main discussion of which is a rather obscure tribe of Native Americans in the northern hills of Mexico who apparently are the worlds' all-time champion endurance athletes. Their diet, according to the author, is largely centered around corn-beer.

You can eat alot of crap and as long as you are moving, you're fine. I had a friend who ate Burger King 2 meals a day and ran a 16:30 3-mile and could do 28 dead-hang pullups.

Of course if you exercise vs needed calorie intake you will lose weight. Certain foods help metabolism though, and eating more healthy foods help as well. Look at most Asian cultures, obesity is far less prevalent and the typical diets there consist of fish and many leafy vegetables vs pork/beef corn/potato.

ThePlayDrive said:

No, the NUMBER of things one is having faith in is irrelevant to the point that I am making.

Click to expand...

A legislator is a very different thing from the legislators. The legislators, as a whole, have very different characteristics from a legislator, singular.

You clarified that you were talking about legislators and "revenue raised from sin taxes going primarily towards programs dealing with the effects of the products receiving those taxes." We've already gone over this as well.

Click to expand...

False. I was talking about people putting pressure on the legislators in that particular quote.

Interesting, because in your initial response to me, you just said legislators.

Click to expand...

You realize that situation =/= people upon whom the faith is placed, right?

No, in OUR conversation, you told me what specific situation you were referring to when you said:

Click to expand...

The first quote, the one that you claim is an absolute was not from "OUR' conversation. It triggered it, but it was from another conversation.

That's what I was referring to. If that's not what you meant by specific situation, then you shouldn't call me a "liar" from literally quoting your definition of specific situation. Quoting you is the exact opposite of lying.

Click to expand...

you are misrepresenting the order of the quotes. I have made statements about the faith placed in the legislators. The one you originally quoted form me was not one of them.

And that premise is not necessarily true either nor is it the only way to measure whether or not one should have confidence in legislators.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be necessarily true.

It only has to be likely to be true. The evidence suggests that there is little chance of it not being true. Thus it requires faith to conclude that it won't be true.

Consequently, everything I said before applies to this premise as well.

Click to expand...

And it's wrong because you are operating under the false assumption that it must be true, rather than just being extremely likely to be true, in order to draw the conclusion that faith is required to assume the opposite.

You're defining proof simply as how legislators have behaved in the past specifically with regard to "revenue raised from sin taxes going primarily towards programs dealing with the effects of the products receiving those taxes."

Click to expand...

False. I'm defining proof as "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact".

The past history is merely the evidence that must be considered.

Since the preponderance of available evidence supports the conclusion that they won't treat such sin tax revenue in the described manner, it would absolutely require a leap of faith to assume that they would go and do something different this time around.

That's not the only measure of proof in this situation which is why your comments about it are off base.

Click to expand...

It is evidence which must be considered. If one chooses to ignore that evidence, they must be operating entirely on faith.

I don't know what your problem is today, bro, but you're acting like a real dick right now which is out of character for you (from what I've seen)

Click to expand...

It's not out of character for me at all. I always get this way when people try to "correct" me when they are misrepresenting my argument. Pretty much without fail I get like this. I'll be the first person to admit it. I'm a dick. An arrogant dick. I don't deny that at all. Especially in logical debates.

That being said, there's one major problem with your assessment about my use of the word faith that you have still not considered.

You can't have proof of something that has yet to occur. No matter how much evidence you have to suggest that something won't happen, you cannot prove that it won't happen. There's always a certain degree of faith involved in that which has yet to occur.

For example, my wife has never stabbed me in my sleep before. All of the evidence available to me suggests that tonight she will not stab me in my sleep. Because of that, I have faith she that she won't stab me in my sleep tonight. That doesn't mean she won't stab me in my sleep. There's no proof that she won't, but I have faith in her not doing so, and that faith is based on the evidence.

When I say I have no faith in the legislators doing the specific task being discussed, and that I have no faith in the people pressuring them to do said task, that simply means I do have faith in them not doing those things. I'm basing my faith on evidence, but I could be wrong. The fact that it has yet to occur means every possibility is open. It doesn't mean that there is no faith required to believe that one of those possibilities will come about.

Boo Radley said:

I'm not sure we're agreed what this was about. I told everyone I once weighted in excess of 350 lbs. At that time not only did I work every day, play racketball, and was politically active, I ran four miles a day and lifted weights. Exactly what part was me not getting off my ass?

Click to expand...

We're having a disconnect here. I would have faith in you doing what you say. I have no reason to doubt your commitment to the issue. I don't have faith in other people joining your cause in enough numbers to make the difference that would be required.

Faith, as you defined it, is wating for others to do it. A belief that it will just happen.

Click to expand...

That's absolutely false. I have no idea where you got that idea from, but it's absolutely positively false on every single level.

Sure, I do believe in people in general, and you may call that faith if you like.

Click to expand...

That's what I did. I called your faith in other people faith. I stated I don't have that same faith in others that you do.

But I do not believe in just sitting back and believing they will do.

Click to expand...

I still have no idea where you got the idea that I said anything remotely close to this.

I specifically laid out what I woould support, and what I was willing to do. That isn't faith by your definition.

Click to expand...

Well, technically it would be faith in yourself by the definition I have been using. That said, I would have faith in you to do it too. If you could do it alone, I'd have faith in it actually getting done. I don't have much faith in your ability to gather enough support for the cause to make a difference, though. That's because I lack faith in others to do that which would be required, not because I lack faith in you.

Your definition and attitude seems rather defeatist to me. But, we should explore that elsewhere.

Click to expand...

My definition of faith is the definition of faith, and it's nothing like what you have said it is.

My attitude is cynical, not defeatist. That doesn't mean I don't put forth the effort. Defeatist would be not putting forth any effort.

Cynical just means I've fruitlessly beaten my head against the brick wall of humanity enough to know that most people would rather sit on their asses than make a difference. Thus, I seek to make a difference at a level I can actually have an effect at. Locally. While other people complain about hardships caused by people not having healthcare, I've organized fundraisers for people in my community who needed help paying for healthcare, for example.

I have learned that our society is filled with people who want to help, as long as it's convenient. I can use that to my advantage to make very real, very important differences in people's lives on the small level. But it makes very real, and very important national level changes far more difficult.

Basically, my choice to embrace cynicism has made me a far more effective activist.

JohnWOlin said:

Being lethargic can come from eating bad in the first place. Besides that are you really going to try and argue that an average person could eat nothing but bacon and potatoes vs chicken and asparagus and the person eating the second choice wouldn't be better off?

Click to expand...

There is a whole lot more to this.
IMO, the bacon is good, for my diet, anyway (diabetic)
We must exercise, all these labor saving devices are not necessarily good for our health.
We must learn how to cook, how to make food taste good.
We must wean ourselves from so much sugar and salt...this starts at day one, or even earlier.

My current beliefs:

1) Tax the incredibly unhealth & pre-made foods only, for now.
2) Tax people for being overweight. Exclude muscle mass.
3) Stop food corporations from brainwashing our young and impressionable children.
4) Either support bad rights and the cost for those rights, or don't support said right and don't pay for the costs involving it.

Tucker Case said:

We're having a disconnect here. I would have faith in you doing what you say. I have no reason to doubt your commitment to the issue. I don't have faith in other people joining your cause in enough numbers to make the difference that would be required.


That's absolutely false. I have no idea where you got that idea from, but it's absolutely positively false on every single level.



That's what I did. I called your faith in other people faith. I stated I don't have that same faith in others that you do.



I still have no idea where you got the idea that I said anything remotely close to this.



Well, technically it would be faith in yourself by the definition I have been using. That said, I would have faith in you to do it too. If you could do it alone, I'd have faith in it actually getting done. I don't have much faith in your ability to gather enough support for the cause to make a difference, though. That's because I lack faith in others to do that which would be required, not because I lack faith in you.



My definition of faith is the definition of faith, and it's nothing like what you have said it is.

My attitude is cynical, not defeatist. That doesn't mean I don't put forth the effort. Defeatist would be not putting forth any effort.

Cynical just means I've fruitlessly beaten my head against the brick wall of humanity enough to know that most people would rather sit on their asses than make a difference. Thus, I seek to make a difference at a level I can actually have an effect at. Locally. While other people complain about hardships caused by people not having healthcare, I've organized fundraisers for people in my community who needed help paying for healthcare, for example.

I have learned that our society is filled with people who want to help, as long as it's convenient. I can use that to my advantage to make very real, very important differences in people's lives on the small level. But it makes very real, and very important national level changes far more difficult.

Basically, my choice to embrace cynicism has made me a far more effective activist.

Click to expand...

Cynical is not much better than defeatist. While I admire Don Quixote, but think most are more like Aldonza. They want to believe and when motivated will act. The problem is in the motivation.

However, none of this really address what I have said. I said what I will support, under what conditions, and what I will do. I think we start at that level.

Boo Radley said:

I said what I will support, under what conditions, and what I will do. I think we start at that level.

Click to expand...

And I responded to that by saying that I don't have any faith in it ever being achieved at that level with any efficiency. You were trying to say there was no faith involved, which was false. That's why this side conversation happened.

Wake said:

My current beliefs:

1) Tax the incredibly unhealth & pre-made foods only, for now.
2) Tax people for being overweight. Exclude muscle mass.
3) Stop food corporations from brainwashing our young and impressionable children.
4) Either support bad rights and the cost for those rights, or don't support said right and don't pay for the costs involving it.

Click to expand...

1. That's possible, but you have to set standards that aren't so vague.
2. That's not possible and ridiculous, in my opinion. I'm also pretty sure it violates some version of the right to privacy.
3. How do you propose to do that?
4. I don't know what this means.

In sum, aside from #1 depending on what you want to tax, your solutions seem impractical and vague.

ThePlayDrive said:

2. That's not possible and ridiculous, in my opinion. I'm also pretty sure it violates some version of the right to privacy.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing HIPA

Tucker Case said:

And I responded to that by saying that I don't have any faith in it ever being achieved at that level with any efficiency. You were trying to say there was no faith involved, which was false. That's why this side conversation happened.

Click to expand...

And I still say that I am not advocating faith. I'm advocating hard work and involvement.

ThePlayDrive said:

1. That's possible, but you have to set standards that aren't so vague.
2. That's not possible and ridiculous, in my opinion. I'm also pretty sure it violates some version of the right to privacy.
3. How do you propose to do that?
4. I don't know what this means.

In sum, aside from #1 depending on what you want to tax, your solutions seem impractical and vague.

Click to expand...

1) Then set standards would be made.
2) Why is it impossible and ridiculous? If you're obese, why shouldn't your taxes increase?
3) Legislation and whatever other legal channels available.
4) Meaning that people who support an unhealthy right like obesity should also take responsiblity and pay for the medical costs of the right they support through taxes. In addition to that, people who don't support the right to be obese shouldn't have to pay for the medical costs of obesity through their taxes.

I'm not a lawman. With added knowledge the solutions will undoubtedly become clearer and more practical.

Boo Radley said:

And I still say that I am not advocating faith. I'm advocating hard work and involvement.

Click to expand...

It's faith to assume that others will engage in that hard work an involvement. In order to achieve the political goals you are advocating, you have to have faith in other people.

Tucker Case said:

It's not out of character for me at all. I always get this way when people try to "correct" me when they are misrepresenting my argument. Pretty much without fail I get like this. I'll be the first person to admit it. I'm a dick. An arrogant dick. I don't deny that at all. Especially in logical debates.

Click to expand...

I didn't misrepresent anything. Maybe you think I did, but that thought seems ridiculous since I know I did not and since I was careful to use the exact "specific context" that you described to me. Nonetheless, it's pretty clear that it's not my actual argument you had problem with, but just the notion that someone would question you on yours. So you should probably just grow up because getting this pissy and irrational over someone disagreeing with you about something as minute as the word "faith" is really dumb and it makes debating more complicated than it has to be.

You can't have proof of something that has yet to occur.

Click to expand...

That's correct. However, you can have proof that of things that have occurred. And if you have proof that legislators, specifically or in general, have been successful at their jobs in the past then that is means you have regular belief instead of faith in their ability to do their jobs well in the future.

Tucker Case said:

It's faith to assume that others will engage in that hard work an involvement. In order to achieve the political goals you are advocating, you have to have faith in other people.

Click to expand...

I still don't see it as faith. I think we work to educate and motivate. Not sure where the faith part comes into it.

Wake said:

1) Then set standards would be made.
2) Why is it impossible and ridiculous? If you're obese, why shouldn't your taxes increase?
3) Legislation and whatever other legal channels available.
4) Meaning that people who support an unhealthy right like obesity should also take responsiblity and pay for the medical costs of the right they support through taxes. In addition to that, people who don't support the right to be obese shouldn't have to pay for the medical costs of obesity through their taxes.

I'm not a lawman. With added knowledge the solutions will undoubtedly become clearer and more practical.

Click to expand...

1. Um, it's YOUR belief. You set the standards.
2. So what do you suggest? Having people put their weight on their tax forms. You are taking this a giant leap too far and, like I said, it's probably a violation of the right to privacy.
3. Do you have proof that such legislation will work?
4. Um, you can't tell people that they don't have the right to be obese.

ThePlayDrive said:

1. Um, it's YOUR belief. You set the standards.
2. So what do you suggest? Having people put their weight on their tax forms. You are taking this a giant leap too far and, like I said, it's probably a violation of the right to privacy.
3. Do you have proof that such legislation will work?
4. Um, you can't tell people that they don't have the right to be obese.

Click to expand...

1) Once I've garnered enough knowledge on the issue would I start trying to implement rough standards.
2) I would need to know exactly what possible violations would be had. If there is a way for it to work, then it will be attempted.
3) No. It may work, it may not. That hasn't stopped people in the past from legislating new concepts.
4) Did I say that?

Wake said:

1) Once I've garnered enough knowledge on the issue would I start trying to implement rough standards.
2) I would need to know exactly what possible violations would be had. If there is a way for it to work, then it will be attempted.
3) No. It may work, it may not. That hasn't stopped people in the past from legislating new concepts.
4) Did I say that?

Click to expand...

1. Mhm.
2. I think it's ridiculous to invade people's private lives and make them pay for being overweight and in this country, such a measure would (thankfully), never pass.
3. Just because other people do it doesn't make it a good idea. Advocating policies that don't have any evidence to back them is one of the main reasons that our education system among other things is failing.
4. You said, "Meaning that people who support an unhealthy right like obesity should also take responsiblity and pay for the medical costs of the right they support through taxes. In addition to that, people who don't support the right to be obese shouldn't have to pay for the medical costs of obesity through their taxes."
If you don't support a right, then you are either telling people that they shouldn't or don't have the right to be obese. In either case, the government can't punish or reward people based on their support or lack of support for "obesity." Aside from the fact that "the right to obesity" isn't an actual right, support for that imaginary right isn't possible to measure.

ThePlayDrive said:

1. Mhm.
2. I think it's ridiculous to invade people's private lives and make them pay for being overweight and in this country, such a measure would (thankfully), never pass.
3. Just because other people do it doesn't make it a good idea. Advocating policies that don't have any evidence to back them is one of the main reasons that our education system among other things is failing.
4. You said, "Meaning that people who support an unhealthy right like obesity should also take responsiblity and pay for the medical costs of the right they support through taxes. In addition to that, people who don't support the right to be obese shouldn't have to pay for the medical costs of obesity through their taxes."
If you don't support a right, then you are either telling people that they shouldn't or don't have the right to be obese. In either case, the government can't punish or reward people based on their support or lack of support for "obesity." Aside from the fact that "the right to obesity" isn't an actual right, support for that imaginary right isn't possible to measure.

Click to expand...

2) It may pass. We already have other sorts of regulations and sin taxes, iirc. All we need is the problem to grow, people to take notice and understand, and time.
3) There may be proof that it would work. Obviously I'm no lawman so I don't have that experience. Taxation for obesity may exist in other nations, or use of BMI.
4) The right to feed to the point of obesity. If you advocate that, then you should also pay higher taxes to cover the medical costs associated with prolonged obesity.

Boo Radley said:

I still don't see it as faith. I think we work to educate and motivate. Not sure where the faith part comes into it.

Click to expand...

The faith comes into it with the word I bolded.

Tucker Case said:

The faith comes into it with the word I bolded.

Click to expand...

Well, I know there is more than me working on issues. Legislators do get more phone calls and emails than from just me, so I think the word we is a fact and not a matter of faith.

ThePlayDrive said:

I didn't misrepresent anything. Maybe you think I did, but that thought seems ridiculous since I know I did not and since I was careful to use the exact "specific context" that you described to me. Nonetheless, it's pretty clear that it's not my actual argument you had problem with, but just the notion that someone would question you on yours.

Click to expand...

The only thing that's pretty clear is that you don't even understand the argument you are pretending to disagree with (You can't disagree with that which you don't understand). :shrug:

You did misrepresent my argument, though. It just seems that you are incapable of recognizing that you did.

So you should probably just grow up because getting this pissy and irrational over someone disagreeing with you about something as minute as the word "faith" is really dumb and it makes debating more complicated than it has to be.

Click to expand...

I'm not getting pissy. I'm a dick. I don't need to be pissy in order to be a dick. I'm simply consistent about when I choose to let my dick side loose. When people earn that treatment, they receive it.

That's correct.

Click to expand...

I know. Which is why you were simply flat out wrong to pretend that you could "correct" me for already using the word correctly.

However, you can have proof that of things that have occurred.

Click to expand...

Of course. That doesn't do **** to provide proof about future performance, of course, but fantastic job of stating that which needn't be stated.

See, I'm not being pissy, I'm just being a dick. And arrogant dick.

And if you have proof that legislators, specifically or in general, have been successful at their jobs in the past then that is means you have regular belief instead of faith in their ability to do their jobs well in the future.

Click to expand...

False. You would be having faith in their continued competence. That faith would be based on evidence and inductive reasoning, but past output does not guarantee future performance.