The Need for Regulation: Fighting the Obesity Epidemic

ThePlayDrive · May 30, 2012

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.

It depends on which definition you're using. If you're using "confidence in another person's ability", then yes, that's a literal definition of faith. If you're using "belief not based on proof," then having confidence in legislators is not necessarily faith since that confidence can be based on proof.

ThePlayDrive · May 30, 2012

Chaddelamancha said:
It boggles my mind that someone could look at an overweight person and instead of thinking, "Hey that person should take some responsibility for their life and lose some weight," they think, "Man, we should have some government intervention for that fat person. Perhaps a sin tax?" So I should pay more for a delicious sugary treat because the guy next to me can't stop wolfing them down for dinner? It's a ridiculous argument to make. Now, should that person pay more for their health care? Heck yes, that's why bad drivers pay more for car insurance. Should we as a society be doing more to curb obesity? Yes, try encouraging your kids to go outside and play, not sit around the house all the time. Start a community fit club, donate time to your local school kids and get them to exercise, but for the love of all that is holy, keep the damn government out of it!

It boggles my mind that people think personal responsibility is so simple. It also boggles my mind that people think obesity is a problem that only affects the individual.

On the first point, people learn personal responsibility and are taught, directly or indirectly, the tools required to use it. Consequently, anyone who thinks that they got to where they are just because they have personal responsibility and others don't is lying to themselves and not giving credit to whoever or whatever gave them the tools to take care of themselves. The fact is that not everybody was given the tools be personally responsible.

On the second point, you could argue, "So what, still not my problem," which I think is a fair argument when the problem just affects the individual. However, when the problem starts to cost society and there are research-backed solutions to the problem, then I think arguing "So what, not my problem" is both inaccurate and irrational.

joko104 · May 30, 2012

It will take education. Few people know just how dangerous and bad for your health fast foods such as McDonalds, KFC, Burger King etc are.

Tucker Case · May 30, 2012

ThePlayDrive said:
It depends on which definition you're using. If you're using "confidence in another person's ability", then yes, that's a literal definition of faith. If you're using "belief not based on proof," then having confidence in legislators is not necessarily faith since that confidence can be based on proof.

whether or not there is proof depends entirely on what the legislators are doing. In this case, both definitions apply.

ThePlayDrive · May 30, 2012

Tucker Case said:
whether or not there is proof depends entirely on what the legislators are doing. In this case, both definitions apply.

No, it doesn't necessarily. Confidence in a legislator's ability to be fair with the law may be based on knowledge of their past behavior which may be used as proof. Consequently, the latter definition of faith as "belief without proof" does not apply.

Lightning · May 30, 2012

This is what I as a Libertarian worry about everyday. The government dictating what the hell I can put in my body. If my neighbor dies of a heart attack because of clogged arteries, let me tell you he was probably happy before he died because he was eating what he wanted too.

Point being... the government has absolutely no right and/or legal basis to tell me what I can or cannot put in my mouth. I don't give a damn what statistics anyone throws at me, or what facts anyone presents, it is my fundamental right to choose what I consume.

ThePlayDrive · May 30, 2012

Lightning said:
This is what I as a Libertarian worry about everyday. The government dictating what the hell I can put in my body. If my neighbor dies of a heart attack because of clogged arteries, let me tell you he was probably happy before he died because he was eating what he wanted too.

Point being... the government has absolutely no right and/or legal basis to tell me what I can or cannot put in my mouth. I don't give a damn what statistics anyone throws at me, or what facts anyone presents, it is my fundamental right to choose what I consume.

Well that settles that.

Tucker Case · May 30, 2012

ThePlayDrive said:
No, it doesn't necessarily. Confidence in a legislator's ability to be fair with the law may be based on knowledge of their past behavior which may be used as proof. Consequently, the latter definition of faith as "belief without proof" does not apply.

First, it's not singular, it's plural. As in "the legislators'" as opposed to "a legislator". All of the legislators are involved in the passing of bills.

Second: We're talking about a very specific situation: revenue raised from sin taxes going primarily towards programs dealing with the effects of the products receiving those taxes. In that instance, the legislators (plural) have proven themselves incompetent time and time again.

Thus, it is an exercise in faith to assume that this time would be different since it would be a belief without proof.

Chaddelamancha · May 30, 2012

ThePlayDrive said:
It boggles my mind that people think personal responsibility is so simple. It also boggles my mind that people think obesity is a problem that only affects the individual.

On the first point, people learn personal responsibility and are taught, directly or indirectly, the tools required to use it. Consequently, anyone who thinks that they got to where they are just because they have personal responsibility and others don't is lying to themselves and not giving credit to whoever or whatever gave them the tools to take care of themselves. The fact is that not everybody was given the tools be personally responsible.

On the second point, you could argue, "So what, still not my problem," which I think is a fair argument when the problem just affects the individual. However, when the problem starts to cost society and there are research-backed solutions to the problem, then I think arguing "So what, not my problem" is both inaccurate and irrational.

While I would agree that it isn't just an individuals problem, I don't agree that we as a society should be forced by the government to pay for it. There are other solutions other than dipping into my pocket book.

ThePlayDrive · May 30, 2012

Tucker Case said:
First, it's not singular, it's plural. As in "the legislators'" as opposed to "a legislator". All of the legislators are involved in the passing of bills.

My comment is accurate in both cases because it's based on a definition of faith not on the number of objects one has confidence in.

Second: We're talking about a very specific situation: revenue raised from sin taxes going primarily towards programs dealing with the effects of the products receiving those taxes. In that instance, the legislators (plural) have proven themselves incompetent time and time again.

Thus, it is an exercise in faith to assume that this time would be different since it would be a belief without proof.

It depends on the legislator(s) in question and what the basis of one's evaluation of them is. First, you assume that the only means of evaluating legislators in their past record of dealing with this specific situation. That's not the case. One can use legislators' general history as well in addition to whatever research they base their proposals on. Second, your statement is based on the premise that legislators remain the same as a group and as individuals. This is not true either. Legislators are different from state to state and from year to year. Furthermore, individuals change meaning that their records are not the only basis on which to evaluate them.

The point is that arguing that trusting legislators is faith is not necessarily true. As an absolute statement, it is false.

Tucker Case · May 30, 2012

ThePlayDrive said:
My comment is accurate in both cases because it's based on a definition of faith not on the number of objects one has confidence in.

It's inaccurate because you are ignoring the context in which faith is being used.

The point is that arguing that trusting legislators is faith is not necessarily true. As an absolute statement, it is false.

What, exactly, do you think I said that causes you to think that there was an absolute statement made which caused it to be necessary for you to claim that it is false to make such a statement? (Hint: you aren't even accurately portraying my comment that you responded to, since I was not talking about legislators in that instance AND i was talking about a very specific scenario)

Boo Radley · May 30, 2012

Tucker Case said:
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.

Many things have gotten done. And no, faith means, in context here, sitting back and waiting for it to happen. I believe in us working to make things happen, which includes us speaking to our representatives. The work government does is messy, as is all work for that matter, but those who complain about too often ignore how much has been done by people working through government.

ThePlayDrive · May 30, 2012

Tucker Case said:
It's inaccurate because you are ignoring the context in which faith is being used.

The contextual "explanation" that you provided - legislators vs. legislator - has no effect on what I'm arguing. The number of legislators is irrelevant.

What, exactly, do you think I said that causes you to think that there was an absolute statement made which caused it to be necessary for you to claim that it is false to make such a statement? (Hint: you aren't even accurately portraying my comment that you responded to, since I was not talking about legislators in that instance AND i was talking about a very specific scenario)

Well, I thought you said:

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.

If that comment is, in fact, yours, then you made an absolute statement. And in your "very specific scenario" which you said was "evenue raised from sin taxes going primarily towards programs dealing with the effects of the products receiving those taxes," your aforementioned statement remains not necessarily true for the reasons you ignored:

First, you assume that the only means of evaluating legislators in their past record of dealing with this specific situation. That's not the case. Second, your statement is based on the premise that legislators remain the same as a group and as individuals. This is not true either.

The main problem is that you have a very narrow definition of "proof" that doesn't necessarily apply.

Tucker Case · May 30, 2012

Boo Radley said:
Many things have gotten done.

As I said earlier, we're not talking about many things, we're talking about a specific thing.

And no, faith means, in context here, sitting back and waiting for it to happen.

That's not what faith means. In any context, but certainly not the context I have used the word in. I tend to use real definitions for words, not fake ones.

I believe in us working to make things happen, which includes us speaking to our representatives.

And one or two people can't do it alone. I have faith that I would do that for something I felt was a good idea. I don't have faith in other people doing it for this particular issue.

The work government does is messy, as is all work for that matter, but those who complain about too often ignore how much has been done by people working through government.

Much has been done by people working through the government. I'm not sure why you think that fact means this particular has any chance of working though. I accomplish tons of things every single day through hard, messy work, that doesn't mean I can accomplish pulling a rabbit out of Newt Gingrich's ass.

Boo Radley · May 30, 2012

Tucker Case said:
As I said earlier, we're not talking about many things, we're talking about a specific thing.

That's not what faith means. In any context, but certainly not the context I have used the word in. I tend to use real definitions for words, not fake ones.

And one or two people can't do it alone. I have faith that I would do that for something I felt was a good idea. I don't have faith in other people doing it for this particular issue.

Much has been done by people working through the government. I'm not sure why you think that fact means this particular has any chance of working though. I accomplish tons of things every single day through hard, messy work, that doesn't mean I can accomplish pulling a rabbit out of Newt Gingrich's ass.

Never suggested one or two. I suggest a majority of us quit complaining and actually participate. Nor is this comparable to pulling a rabbit out anyone's ass.

BTW, if you follow the context, I was using a real definition. Being snarky isn't actually a good debate tactic . . . . just saying.

:coffeepap

Tucker Case · May 30, 2012

ThePlayDrive said:
The contextual "explanation" that you provided - legislators vs. legislator - has no effect on what I'm arguing. The number of legislators is irrelevant.

The thing one is having faith in is irrelevant in your mind? Why is that?

Well, I thought you said:

I did say that. Now take a wild stab at who those "others" were and what their "work" was in that context?

If that comment is, in fact, yours, then you made an absolute statement.

Yes. About others doing their work in diligence. Not about legislators.

And in your "very specific scenario" which you said was "evenue raised from sin taxes going primarily towards programs dealing with the effects of the products receiving those taxes," your aforementioned statement remains not necessarily true for the reasons you ignored:

Now you are lying. You skipped about ten posts and ignored their content.

First, you assume that the only means of evaluating legislators in their past record of dealing with this specific situation.

If you try to base it on anything else but the available evidence, you are not basing it on proof. The only available evidence is what the legislators in general have doen when faced with such legislation. One or two individual legislators might be different from the rest as a whole, but they won't be able to pass **** all laws on their own.

That's not the case.

What proof can one have outside of all of the available evidence?

Second, your statement is based on the premise that legislators remain the same as a group and as individuals. This is not true either.

False. My statement is based on the premise that legislators remain the same types of people, not that they are the same as a group or individuals.

The problem here is clearly that you cannot accurately assess my premises because you have false beliefs about what premises would be required to reach my conclusions.

The main problem is that you have a very narrow definition of "proof" that doesn't necessarily apply.

If by "narrow" you mean real, then yes I do have a narrow definition of proof.

Tucker Case · May 30, 2012

Boo Radley said:
I suggest a majority of us quit complaining and actually participate.

And what evidence exists which would suggest that this is possible with regard to obesity? Remember, we're specifically talking about an issue that is caused by people not getting off of their asses and doing something about it.

Nor is this comparable to pulling a rabbit out anyone's ass.

When you think about the issue we are talking about, getting people off of their asses and doing something is probably much more difficult than pulling a rabitt out of Newt's ass would be.

BTW, if you follow the context, I was using a real definition. Being snarky isn't actually a good debate tactic . . . . just saying.

You just said that faith means "sitting back and waiting for it to happen". That is a fake definition for Faith.

And pretending that I'm being snarky by pointing out that fact is not a very good debate tactic. Of course, making up definitions for words and then pretending that the person you are debating with actually used such an imaginary definition is an even worse debate tactic.

Chiefgator · May 30, 2012

If it were legal for medical insurance companies to deny payment for weight related maladies, I fully believe the obesity rate would drop. When you don't have to worry about how you were going to pay for it, there is little incentive to change your lifestyle.

Except the whole "keep living" thing.....

ThePlayDrive · May 30, 2012

Tucker Case said:
The thing one is having faith in is irrelevant in your mind? Why is that?

No, the NUMBER of things one is having faith in is irrelevant to the point that I am making. I already clarified that a while ago.

Tucker Case said:
I did say that. Now take a wild stab at who those "others" were and what their "work" was in that context?

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.

Tucker Case said:
Yes. About others doing their work in diligence. Not about legislators.

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

Tucker Case said:
Second: We're talking about a very specific situation: revenue raised from sin taxes going primarily towards programs dealing with the effects of the products receiving those taxes. In that instance, the legislators (plural) have proven themselves incompetent time and time again.

Thus, it is an exercise in faith to assume that this time would be different since it would be a belief without proof.

Tucker Case said:
Now you are lying. You skipped about ten posts and ignored their content.

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

Tucker Case said:
We're talking about a very specific situation: revenue raised from sin taxes going primarily towards programs dealing with the effects of the products receiving those taxes. In that instance, the legislators (plural) have proven themselves incompetent time and time again.

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.

Tucker Case said:
If you try to base it on anything else but the available evidence, you are not basing it on proof. The only available evidence is what the legislators in general have doen when faced with such legislation. One or two individual legislators might be different from the rest as a whole, but they won't be able to pass **** all laws on their own.

What proof can one have outside of all of the available evidence?

Tucker Case said:
False. My statement is based on the premise that legislators remain the same types of people, not that they are the same as a group or individuals.

The problem here is clearly that you cannot accurately assess my premises because you have false beliefs about what premises would be required to reach my conclusions.

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

Tucker Case said:
If by "narrow" you mean real, then yes I do have a narrow definition of proof.

No, I mean narrow. 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." That's not the only measure of proof in this situation which is why your comments about it are off base.

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), I'm just gonna bow out of the conversation and let you go at this with Boo until you get over whatever your problem is.

Goshin · May 30, 2012

Wake said:
We seem to be breaking down, wallowing in our debilitation and lack of willpower. There is a group of people in America that on one hand opines that we Americans should be allowed to slowly kill ourselves through unhealthy food, and on the other hand complain about increasing taxes for the costs of affording the results of said unhealthy living. You should not be able to have it both ways; either support unhealthy living and pay taxes because of it, or don't support unhealthy freedom and don't pay taxes for it.

Look, we've got problems, and people need to start caring before America develops its own heart attack, per se.

Overweight and Obesity in the U.S. « Food Research & Action Center

Supposedly 2/3 of all U.S. adults are overweight/obese. That's insane.

Obesity Costs America $4 Billion Per Year At The Pump

This directly affects the cost of our gasoline. This likely affects our airlines in some way as well.

Health Buzz: 42 Percent of Americans Will Be Obese in 2030 - US News and World Report

The supposed projection for obesity in America is that 42% of all adults will be obese by 2030, and 1/4 of that group severely obese. The next 100 years if nothing is done...?

We need to act. If sin taxes "don't work" then perhaps we need to start applying regulations, because obviously education isn't reaching enough people. Charge people through their insurance for being obese. Don't feel sorry for them, because they know what they're doing. Don't charge them obscene amounts of money; start it very gradually, and moniter those results. Incorporate a "sin" tax as effectively as possible, like a scalpel. If taxing sugar and salt doesn't work, target doughnuts and fried food. Target what this group of people is inclined to devour.

Add some sort of gradual and minute benefit to those with the foresight of healthy eating. Wean the fat man off the nipple of the taxpayer, and wake up the taxpayer who supports unhealthy behavior yet complains about rising taxes.

You may think you have the freedom to kill yourself, but you don't have the freedom to kill America's future.

If there are valid links that showcase the results of Europe's regulation of healthy living that'd be deeply appreciated.

Butt out.

I don't wish to live in a country where we legislate based on the lowest common denominator and the assumption that most people are dimwitted children with no self-control.

Let nature take its course and it will sort itself out eventually.

Kal'Stang · May 30, 2012

ThePlayDrive said:
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.

They may very well not want to interfere in peoples lives. But that is exactly what they are doing. And where does it end? Where do we draw the line? One day its one thing, the next its another, the third its another still. It all adds up. Soon you won't be able to turn your back on your kid for 5 seconds for fear of breaking some friggen law. Whether the kid is asleep or not.

ttwtt78640 · May 30, 2012

Kal'Stang said:
They may very well not want to interfere in peoples lives. But that is exactly what they are doing. And where does it end? Where do we draw the line? One day its one thing, the next its another, the third its another still. It all adds up. Soon you won't be able to turn your back on your kid for 5 seconds for fear of breaking some friggen law. Whether the kid is asleep or not.

Welcome to the huge gov't nanny state, give them your paycheck and they will "properly" care for you.

Krasche · May 30, 2012

Sooo... what the hell happened to personal responsibility? Did that **** go out the window or what? Sure we could input heavy taxes and regulations to control what restaurants serve or what people eat, or we can remember we live in AMERICA were people have the right to live and do as they please. Frankly, I don't think what's in our food is even the problem. We're eating overall healthier than we did 20-30 years ago, yet obesity rates are HIGHER. Why? Think back to when you were a kid. How many kids did you see outside playing. Ok now think about how many you see today. Exactly. Nobody goes out and exercises anymore. There's less and less reason to go out and do things thanks to the mass increase in technology.

Not only that, but in 1970 the average age of US citizens was roughly 28. Today it's about 35. I dunno about you, but I've noticed people gain weight with age. And of course the BMI doesn't account for muscle mass. I'm technically obese, yet I'm in the best shape I've ever been in, rocking abs and everything.

I'm not saying it isn't an issue, but it is definitely overhyped.

Wake · May 30, 2012

Krasche said:
Sooo... what the hell happened to personal responsibility? Did that **** go out the window or what?

Personal responsibility got eaten a while back.

When about 2/3 of all American adults are obese then you know personal responsibility is going out the window.

Goshin · May 30, 2012

Wake said:
Personal responsibility got eaten a while back.

When about 2/3 of all American adults are obese then you know personal responsibility is going out the window.

Holy cow, Wake, they've been moving the goalposts for "Obesity" back further and further for the past 40 years, to the point where you've about got to be skin and bones and tendons to weigh in "normal for your height". Bodybuilders and other muscular athletes are often technically "obese" by government standards because the gov doesn't take into account different body types and levels of muscularity and so on.

I seriously doubt this "obesity crisis" is quite as bad as they make it sound.

Don't like obesity? Put down the doughnut and go take a walk.

Your neighbors' obesity is his problem. This sticking of gov't's nose into everyone's personal life won't end until they're telling you how often you can **** each day.

The Need for Regulation: Fighting the Obesity Epidemic

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

We do nothing. People have the right to live unhealthily.

Use sin taxes.

Use regulations.

Combinations of methods to fight the Obesity Epidemic.

I don't know.

Matthew 16:3

Active member

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Matthew 16:3

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Sometimes wrong

Member

Burned Out Ex-Mod