• 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
I really want to know what a conservative taxpayer thinks about this:

If you support this unhealthy freedom, are you going to support the costs of this freedom through your taxes?

The people who eat unhealthily are the ones responsible for their consequences of doing so.
 
I gotta ask these two questions.

Do people have the right to eat? Yes or no?

Do people have the right to choose so long as they do not infringe on other peoples rights? Yes or no?
 
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.
If people don't want to be disgustingly overweight, they should stop eating themselves to death, and perhaps walk, or jog, or do some situps. I don't know, maybe just tell them to shut the hell up and take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, instead of demanding that the populace pay for their terrible life choices. If my taxes are to pay to get these human like objects in shape, I'd gladly support sending them to the Military, where they can pay the taxpayer back via contract. I don't believe in free rides, especially when the solution to the problem is less spending on food and fuel, and more time and effort spent on exercise that doesn't cost a dime. There's no justifiable excuse for this:

ht_david_smith_100804_main.jpg
 
Do you think our grandparents and great-grandparents were vegan ******s who ate nothing but salad? **** no they didn't eat vegan ***** food.They ate cheeseburgers, organ meats, french fries cooked in animal fat, candy bars,unfortified bread, stuff loaded with butter, stuff cooked in lard and other animal fat and a whole **** load of other unhealthy stuff.We do not need any regulation or food police to curb obesity. The cause of obesity is the fact Americans are living more sedimentary lives.Our jobs are more sedimentary and due to the length of distances some people have to travel to get to work or to a store we have to drive or ride to those places.

There are a lot of people that do not have prespective about this. I think that they think that the late 19th Centry health movement was par the course for much of human history.

Also think that the previous generations also had to keep warm in colder weather than now so they burned calories by just breathing. The Little Ice Age sucked big time so it is warmer now and the isulation for our homes is better and we do not work outside as much as previous generations did.

Maybe we can do something for public school kids and kids on public assistance so that they are not obese when they are in school.For example-

1. Make PE mandatory in all school grades.Get rid of a music class, foreign language class or some other elective to make it happen.

If it was as i remembered after elementary school it would not work. If they are useing the post WWII physical health initiatives that were just a watered down version for preparing for boot camp it will not work. What is needed is a more holistic (the real meaning not the junk meaning) approach which would include actual body types and abilities. Instead of intense work outs maybe teaching how to do moderate workouts that normal people can do. I was never able to do a full workout probably due to having narrow capillaries and veins I hit the wall too soon for that to work for me.

2.Get the schools to have recess and or make it mandatory.

Get rid of No Child Left Behind and we probably will be able to do that.

3.Starting from kindergarten start offering only healthy low calorie food at public schools.Yeah there are kids who bring their own lunch to school, but a lot of kids are on the free or reduced price lunch program they will eat the food if they are hungry enough and if the food actually taste good.

:ranton:As long as the schools are government schools and are dependent on companies who supply for government institutions I do not see that this will be done unless it is made law. If the industries that supply the food for the school is itself another government institution we can just forget about healthy food as well at tasteful.:rantoff:


Maybe at the State level they can have a dietitian on the rolls who will be able to choose a menu that meets the requirements.


4.Ban unhealthy food from public school vending machines.

Yes they can live with that.

5.Ban the following from food stamp and welfare purchases cookies,candies, cakes, sugary snacks, energy drinks and other junk food. As tax payers we most certainly have the right to demand that those asking for our help not waste the money we give them on junk food.

It is mindboggling that these restrictions are not in place already.
 
If people don't want to be disgustingly overweight, they should stop eating themselves to death, and perhaps walk, or jog, or do some situps. I don't know, maybe just tell them to shut the hell up and take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, instead of demanding that the populace pay for their terrible life choices. If my taxes are to pay to get these human like objects in shape, I'd gladly support sending them to the Military, where they can pay the taxpayer back via contract. I don't believe in free rides, especially when the solution to the problem is less spending on food and fuel, and more time and effort spent on exercise that doesn't cost a dime. There's no justifiable excuse for this:

View attachment 67128622

Geezus...another "my taxes blah blah blah" rant.

Hate to tell you this (not really) but fat people pay taxes to. Those that are against making laws that attempt to force people to eat a certain way also pay taxes. So your claim of "my taxes" don't mean squat.
 
Geezus...another "my taxes blah blah blah" rant.
kinda funny, considering how you used taxes to justify your opinion in the thread about the girl being sent to jail for truancy.

Hate to tell you this (not really) but fat people pay taxes to. Those that are against making laws that attempt to force people to eat a certain way also pay taxes. So your claim of "my taxes" don't mean squat.
It means everything. They made the choice to be lard asses, they can live with it.
 
kinda funny, considering how you used taxes to justify your opinion in the thread about the girl being sent to jail for truancy.

There are always exceptions to every rule. That even applies to the Rights in the Bill of Rights. Besides, there is a clear difference between banning someone from eating something and enforcing a truancy law that makes a kid that voluntarily signed up for school attend. On the other hand no one wants to get sick and use medical services.

It means everything. They made the choice to be lard asses, they can live with it.

Your taxes means just as much as someone who doesn't support bans on certain foods. Your taxes means just as much as the fat persons taxes. So in the over all picture, no, your taxes don't mean squat.

And they do live with it. You don't. You don't even have a say as to where your taxes are spent.
 
It directly applies to will. If you want something, go and take it. Those who want to lose weight but can't typically have willpower weakness.

Losing weight has always been about willpower. Do you will yourself to eat healthier, to push yourself further and further, or to ignore the constant temptations?



That is an incentive, but others probably want an added incentive.

A lot of things come down to willpower hence the high divorce rate in our country due to cheating-how about we bring back laws for cheating? What is next? Honestly let peeps live their own damn lives and stay the hell outta it:(
 
I should also mention that there are other, better, alternatives to banning things. Such as promoting exercise for obese people by offering free or reduced priced programs that help them lose weight.
 
Why not just tax people based on body fat percentage?

Now there is an idea. Don't bother with the periphery issues go at the center of the issue. If I was an authoritarian instead of a libertarian I would approve this message. (If I was an authoritarian I would still be a budget conscience authoritarian. I would make it so that the people would have to pay for the proof and filing of their body fat percentage just like our government makes us file and prove income and other taxes.)
 
I should also mention that there are other, better, alternatives to banning things. Such as promoting exercise for obese people by offering free or reduced priced programs that help them lose weight.

Nothing is free. Someone is paying for those "free" classes.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2
 
There are always exceptions to every rule. That even applies to the Rights in the Bill of Rights. Besides, there is a clear difference between banning someone from eating something and enforcing a truancy law that makes a kid that voluntarily signed up for school attend. On the other hand no one wants to get sick and use medical services.



Your taxes means just as much as someone who doesn't support bans on certain foods. Your taxes means just as much as the fat persons taxes. So in the over all picture, no, your taxes don't mean squat.

And they do live with it. You don't. You don't even have a say as to where your taxes are spent.

Actually, I do have a say since I'm a tax paying voter. It's my responsibility as an American to make my opinion known when I oppose, or even support a political issue that effects the population as a whole. Maybe I lose, maybe I win, it's a hell of a lot better than silent complacency, which is just a nice term for cowardice. That's something I will not do, and you telling me I don't have a say, or a choice only fuels that fire. I don't give a damn what they live with, because they inflicted that on themselves. Your little appeal to emotion won't work on me, because I lack empathy for those who consciously choose to destroy their own lives.

They could get on a treadmill for an hour every day, or taking a walk around the block, and cut down on the quantities and calories they eat. They could take personal accountability, and take it upon themselves to fix their own mistakes. But that's too hard, so money that could go to underfunded medical centers, and police departments, fixing up run down neighborhoods, fixing up schools, expanding colleges, helping small business owners, or hell, it could even just not be spent, and go towards or multi-trillion dollar deficit. But no, instead we get news reports that are supposed to make us feel sad enough to give them a pat on the back, and a free ride at the expense of people who need the medical care a hell of a lot more than they do. People with real disabilities, such as missing limbs, MS, leukemia, Parkinson's, etc. I have no sympathy for the obese, not one tiny fraction of a bit.
 
The people who eat unhealthily are the ones responsible for their consequences of doing so.

Totally agree. We are all grown ups. We are all responsible for our own selves. We are all responsible for what we eat.

If you want a pet, get a hermit crab. Other grown ups are not your pets.
 
I should also mention that there are other, better, alternatives to banning things. Such as promoting exercise for obese people by offering free or reduced priced programs that help them lose weight.

Or minding your own fvcking business.
 
The BMI is a load of ****. At 175lbs I'll have a six pack but my BMI is just inside the "overweight" category. Body fat percentage would be a far better measure.

Um, I sure everyone is aware that the BMI was instituted back during the 1960s as a sort of bench mark for physical fitness to determine whether a possible inductee in the military is ready and whether the country has a problem with the inductees as a whole. I do not know how much of the establishment of the BMI standards are all that scientifically based or not. I think it was established so that the inductees would have as little fat on them as possible so that they can carry around 60+ pounds of equipment for a dozen miles or so in a day.

My suspicions are that the standards are on the lean side somewhat. And of course the BMI measures fat from the bodies limbs and surface fat on the abdomen, the 'bad' fat that exists around the intestines do not come into it and is the type that causes type 2 diabetes.
 

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


Says who. . . . .



Freedom is the exercise of ones rights. "Rights" that come with user fees or taxes are not rights but privileges.

Without the ability to exercise ones rights one is not free and doesn't have freedom. If one doesn't have the right to eat what one wants without taxes or user fees than that is not a right.

I was responding to a statement made by Wake:

If you support this freedom, will you support paying for the cost of this freedom through your taxes?

As you can see he was making a statement he used the word freedom and implied it had to be paid for in taxes (money).

The only thing that we need to pay for freedom is due diligennce.


In responce to your question WHO says this i simply point to the 10th admendment of the US Constitution. The federal government has no role in this and as far as I am concered the state goverments would have no role either since they have intrests for this either.
 
Actually, I do have a say since I'm a tax paying voter. It's my responsibility as an American to make my opinion known when I oppose, or even support a political issue that effects the population as a whole. Maybe I lose, maybe I win, it's a hell of a lot better than silent complacency, which is just a nice term for cowardice. That's something I will not do, and you telling me I don't have a say, or a choice only fuels that fire. I don't give a damn what they live with, because they inflicted that on themselves. Your little appeal to emotion won't work on me, because I lack empathy for those who consciously choose to destroy their own lives.

You say that you lack empathy for those that choose to destroy their lives. Ok. What about those that don't choose to destroy their lives?

And you may have a responsibility as an American to make your opinion known and oppose or support a political issue. But you don't have a responsibility or a right to tell people what they can put in their own mouths.

They could get on a treadmill for an hour every day, or taking a walk around the block, and cut down on the quantities and calories they eat. They could take personal accountability, and take it upon themselves to fix their own mistakes. But that's too hard, so money that could go to underfunded medical centers, and police departments, fixing up run down neighborhoods, fixing up schools, expanding colleges, helping small business owners, or hell, it could even just not be spent, and go towards or multi-trillion dollar deficit. But no, instead we get news reports that are supposed to make us feel sad enough to give them a pat on the back, and a free ride at the expense of people who need the medical care a hell of a lot more than they do. People with real disabilities, such as missing limbs, MS, leukemia, Parkinson's, etc. I have no sympathy for the obese, not one tiny fraction of a bit.

If our government decides to build another nuclear bomb do you think that you have a say in that? I could go through a list of things that you may not support just as easy as you went through a list of things that are generally supported. The point though is that you ultimately do not have a say in where any of that tax money goes to. You may think that you do, but you don't. The only real reason that any politician even looks at obesity is because they see dollar signs in front of their eyes. If they actually cared about the problem then they would do what is right instead of what is convienent. You know this, and I know this. Lets not kid ourselves about this.
 
Yup.

Yup.

That is all.

Ok so if people have the right to eat AND people have the right to choose so long as they don't infringe on other peoples rights then why are people trying to restrict people in what they eat?
 
Offering help is in no way interfereing with peoples lives. So why not offer it?

There's nothing wrong with offering help.

But that doesn't mean one can boss other people around.
 
Freedom is the exercise of ones rights. "Rights" that come with user fees or taxes are not rights but privileges.

Without the ability to exercise ones rights one is not free and doesn't have freedom. If one doesn't have the right to eat what one wants without taxes or user fees than that is not a right.

I was responding to a statement made by Wake:



As you can see he was making a statement he used the word freedom and implied it had to be paid for in taxes (money).

The only thing that we need to pay for freedom is due diligennce.


In responce to your question WHO says this i simply point to the 10th admendment of the US Constitution. The federal government has no role in this and as far as I am concered the state goverments would have no role either since they have intrests for this either.

Missed that by Wake, but I don't believe the Constitution is at play here. When what you do ultimately leads to costs picked up by others, a user few is appropriate. In this regard, cost, it is govenment's interests, both state and federal.
 
Back
Top Bottom