• 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
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.

The key is getting enough people on board for that particular issue to make a difference. It's not like all of those phone calls and emails are about the same thing or that you are sending those phone calls and emails to every legislator.

If 500 people send one congressional rep emails about 500 different things, nothing will ever come of it.

Everyone has to be on the same page, about the same issues, and make their voices heard by every legislator for a single issue like the one we are discussing to be dealt with effectively.

That requires faith in others to take up the cause and put forth the effort along with you.
 
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?
You can't even spell racquetball, let alone attempt to play it, fatass.
 
Taxing to acco has not put much of a dent in smoking. Taxing Micky D's will no make much of a dent either.
 
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.

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.

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


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.

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.
Meh. I explained to you why you're wrong. You're upset that you were questioned and because you're upset, you decided to make this personal. When people do that in response to people who are merely disagreeing them, it signals insecurity with their argument. Good luck with that, it's not a good look.
 
Last edited:
Meh. I explained to you why you're wrong.

You explained why you have come to the erroneous conclusion that I am wrong, but since you don't understand my argument, you aren't qualified to make that assessment.

You're upset that you were questioned and because you're upset, you decided to make this personal.

I didn't call you a dick and tell you to grow up. It's not my fault if the truth hurt your feelings. I agree that I am a dick, but that's not because I made things personal.

When people do that in response to people who are merely disagreeing them, it signals insecurity with their argument.

That sucks for you then.
 
You explained why you have come to the erroneous conclusion that I am wrong, but since you don't understand my argument, you aren't qualified to make that assessment. I didn't call you a dick and tell you to grow up. It's not my fault if the truth hurt your feelings. I agree that I am a dick, but that's not because I made things personal.That sucks for you then.
I said you were acting like a dick because you made things personal which you did because you're insecure with your argument. You did the same thing with Boo. You should probably just stop calling things faith when they aren't faith and calling people liars for quoting you word for word.
 
I said you were acting like a dick because you made things personal which you did because you're insecure with your argument. You did the same thing with Boo. You should probably just stop calling things faith when they aren't faith and calling people liars for quoting you word for word.

Like I said, since you don't understand my argument, you aren't qualified to make that assessment.

I call things faith when they are faith. It's not my fault that you don't understand when something actually is faith. And when people lie, I will call their lies lies. :shrug:
 
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.
2. It won't pass.
3. You don't need to be a "lawman" to find evidence to support your assertion.
4. This won't pass either, it probably doesn't have any evidence to support it and it's ridiculous.
 
Like I said, since you don't understand my argument, you aren't qualified to make that assessment.

I call things faith when they are faith. It's not my fault that you don't understand when something actually is faith.
But you've never demonstrated that I don't understand your argument. You've merely said I don't. Unfortunately for you, saying that without demonstration means nothing. You're just butthurt that someone questioned you and expressed that like a little boy.

And when people lie, I will call their lies lies. :shrug:
The best part about accusing people of lying is that it's something that you couldn't possibly know without being in that person's mind. That makes the accusation itself stupid, but then again that sums your entire argument thus far.
 
But you've never demonstrated that I don't understand your argument.

I did. You didn't understand that either. :shrug:

You're just butthurt that someone questioned you and expressed that like a little boy.

:lol: Yep. I'm the one getting personal.


The best part about accusing people of lying is that it's something that you couldn't possibly know without being in that person's mind.

False. A person does not need to be aware of the fact that they are lying in order to tell a lie. Lies are not, by necessity, willful dishonesty.

That makes the accusation itself stupid, but then again that sums your entire argument thus far.

Allow me to repeat, since you don't understand my argument, you aren't qualified to make that assessment.
 
No, no way. I do not need the state or government in general to tell me what I can or cannot eat or how much. It i not illegal to kill one's self but don't let us catch you eating McDonald's, lol.

We need the government to stop trying to force people to live the way they see fit. Has to do with the whole "pursuit of happiness" thing.

What is the point of pursuing your own legal interests when the government makes it even more costly!
 
I did. You didn't understand that either. :shrug:

:lol: Yep. I'm the one getting personal.
I never denied that I got personal. I explained where the unnecessary turn in the conversation began and that was with you. :shrug:

False. A person does not need to be aware of the fact that they are lying in order to tell a lie. Lies are not, by necessity, willful dishonesty.
Kind of like trusting legislators is not, by necessity, faith.

Allow me to repeat, since you don't understand my argument, you aren't qualified to make that assessment.
It's a lot easier to accuse people of not understanding your argument when your argument is demonstrably false as yours is than it is to simply admit your errors. That's what you're doing here which means that your claims of my not understanding aren't legitimate. :shrug:
 
I never denied that I got personal. I explained where the unnecessary turn in the conversation began and that was with you. :shrug:

I never got personal. You took something personally, but I have no control over that.


Kind of like trusting legislators is not, by necessity, faith.

Trusting anyone to do something in the future is an act of faith because there is no proof that they will do said thing in the future.


It's a lot easier to accuse people of not understanding your argument when your argument is demonstrably false as yours is than it is to simply admit your errors. That's what you're doing here which means that your claims of my not understanding aren't legitimate. :shrug:

Allow me to repeat, since you don't understand my argument, you aren't qualified to make that assessment.

I admit my errors when I actually make an error. I can even prove that I do this.

But I don't say that I made an error when I didn't make an error simply to appease someone who failed understand what I was saying. If I did that, I'd be lying.
 
The key is getting enough people on board for that particular issue to make a difference. It's not like all of those phone calls and emails are about the same thing or that you are sending those phone calls and emails to every legislator.

If 500 people send one congressional rep emails about 500 different things, nothing will ever come of it.

Everyone has to be on the same page, about the same issues, and make their voices heard by every legislator for a single issue like the one we are discussing to be dealt with effectively.

That requires faith in others to take up the cause and put forth the effort along with you.

True, but if no one works for something, nothing ever happens. It is the working that is important.
 
True, but if no one works for something, nothing ever happens. It is the working that is important.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on that.

I just tend to put forth the effort at the local level because it has a greater chance for success. This is important because when the work I put in has measurable success, it makes it more likely that other people will become inspired to put forth the effort along with me.
 
I agree with you wholeheartedly on that.

I just tend to put forth the effort at the local level because it has a greater chance for success. This is important because when the work I put in has measurable success, it makes it more likely that other people will become inspired to put forth the effort along with me.

I do that as well. Where the most effect is felt also. But, I don't think that means I need forget about the larger efforts. ;)
 
But, I don't think that means I need forget about the larger efforts. ;)

We have different overall political philosophies, too. My tendency towards dual-federalism means I am less inclined to pursue large national changes for non-civil rights type issues.
 
We have different overall political philosophies, too. My tendency towards dual-federalism means I am less inclined to pursue large national changes for non-civil rights type issues.

Fair enough. But I think some issues are large enough that more is required. I largely put health care and education in this category.
 
Fair enough. But I think some issues are large enough that more is required. I largely put health care and education in this category.

Those are issues I'm torn on (in no small part because I do not have faith in federal legislators, whom I have very little voting control over). I see the need for something, but the things I see being floated around aren't very good or efficient, IMO.
 
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.

1) Oh sure...make prices of things even more expensive. :roll: If you tax one thing then corporations will just find an excuse to raise the prices on other things. Or will just do it incrementally so people don't notice.
2) Why?
3) Are you trying to suggest that people have no choice in what they eat?
4) I do support the rights of others...whether you consider them "bad" rights is just opinion. I also support the cost of those rights.
 
I read through the posts and I believe the war on obesity will fail, or have no great impact. Smoking was controlled only by cost, taxing it till it was unaffordable for many, thats why it was effective in reducing the amount of smokers considerably.
You cant tax through the roof all fattening foods...EVERYTHING makes you fat if you eat too much of it....this utter sillyness of banning 64oz soda and soda in machines in school not going to reduce the obesity epidemic one bit...you tax McDs through the roof...you still have burger king wendys arbies and the colonel popeyes that all peddle mostly ****...
You can try and educated kids starting in elementary school but what good is that if mommy and daddy feed them garbage everyday.
Its a noble endeavor and I would really hope it could work...but I dont see it working much at all
 
Those are issues I'm torn on (in no small part because I do not have faith in federal legislators, whom I have very little voting control over). I see the need for something, but the things I see being floated around aren't very good or efficient, IMO.

I agree. But I have bene talking to state legistalors recently, and they scared the hell out of me on how little they knew about the issue.
 
I agree. But I have bene talking to state legistalors recently, and they scared the hell out of me on how little they knew about the issue.

I hear you on that. I think it's a sad reflection of how little most people know about their local legislators.
 
if you support this freedom, will you support paying for the cost of this freedom through your taxes?

Freedom does not have a tax. If it has a user tax then it is not freedom.
 
Back
Top Bottom