Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
Anything that will make people less fat is a good thing... because it prolongs their lives and saves the rest of us taxpayers money![]()
Originally posted by: Amused
Look, it's very simple. Main meal foods are not the problem. Growing inactivity and the increase of idle munching of snack foods are the only correlation with the obesity epidemic that makes sense. In fact, activity levels are so much lower, even without the incerease in snack foods we'd still have an obesity epidemic.
Originally posted by: mrzed
Originally posted by: Amused
Look, it's very simple. Main meal foods are not the problem. Growing inactivity and the increase of idle munching of snack foods are the only correlation with the obesity epidemic that makes sense. In fact, activity levels are so much lower, even without the incerease in snack foods we'd still have an obesity epidemic.
Much as I find your non-sequiters about freedom and socialism disturbing (jingoism and dogma are a big red flag to me) I have to admit you are mostly right here (excepting the bolded word).
But I think your 60's diorama of well-meaning mothers in gingham dresses stuffing any variety of pale white carbohydrates into their children is telling. Where do you think the roots of this problem are? Surely there are 2 parts, activity is #1 with a bullet, I'd be stupid to argue that, but an unhealthy relationship to food is another.
My wife grew up in the situation you described, being told to finish her plate, eating heaps of margarine (I cringe when her mother makes what she calls "gravy"), being served starches, wrapped around other starches, with a side dish of starch, and bread to wipe it all up with. I had a more balanced upbringing. Who do you think is the one in our relationship that has trouble with portion size, adequate intake of fresh fruits and veggies, etc. I live every day with the damage wreaked by the north american 1960's diet. It has taken years for it to come home to roost, and it needed the one-two punch of sedentism to reach its full glory, but I do think it is a major contributing factor.
At the risk of inciting Amused's wrath, I would suggest a radical (socialist?) solution. Ban ALL advertising aimed at children. Some pinko commie euro nations are looking at this, and I think it is the only thing that makes sense. The little ones are too susceptible, and I think their needs outweighs the freedom of multi-billion dollar corporations to spend millions to manipulate them.
FWIW, I'm somewhat against a fat tax, mostly because it would be impossible to administer fairly.
Originally posted by: Amused
Maybe it's the combination of the food culture and inactivity, but it did not start until the inactivity started.
Originally posted by: Amused
Finally, when it comes to advertising. How about instead of limiting the freedom of speech of companies, we actually stand up to our kids and learn to say NO?
World proof your child instead of trying to child proof the world (which is impossible and only oppresses others because you cannot control your own child).
Originally posted by: Amused
My ideals about freedom have nothing to do with jingoism. Freedom is always preferable to oppression. What I find funniest is those who most often describe themselves as "liberal" are the first to limit freedoms and seem the most frightened by it. I am classically liberal. In fact, I am one of the most liberal people you would ever meet.
Originally posted by: mrzed
Originally posted by: Amused
Maybe it's the combination of the food culture and inactivity, but it did not start until the inactivity started.
I'd say it really took off in the last 2 decades, but the point about it being a combination is what I was trying to make
Originally posted by: Amused
Finally, when it comes to advertising. How about instead of limiting the freedom of speech of companies, we actually stand up to our kids and learn to say NO?
World proof your child instead of trying to child proof the world (which is impossible and only oppresses others because you cannot control your own child).
Exactly why I said my kids won't be watching ads on TV. I won't be waiting for the government to make that choice, but I do think it would be a good choice.
Originally posted by: Amused
My ideals about freedom have nothing to do with jingoism. Freedom is always preferable to oppression. What I find funniest is those who most often describe themselves as "liberal" are the first to limit freedoms and seem the most frightened by it. I am classically liberal. In fact, I am one of the most liberal people you would ever meet.
It was your use of the freedom vs socialism straw man that seemed jingoistic. Nothing inherently socialist about sin taxes IMO. Socialism is about worker's relation to capital.
I am also very libertarian (I don't use liberal because it means something very different outside of the USA). But I do think freedom has limits in a complex society, and one of the main jobs of government is in defining those limits.
In this case, I think the issue is more about user-pay than freedom, but unlike say gasoline, where the externalities can be roughly calculated and included in the tax regime, food is not a standard product, and coming up with a scheme to tax it is far too difficult due to the complexity what we eat.
Originally posted by: BoomerD
wow...bumped an almost 3 year old thread.:shocked:
Not unless it's accompanied by a "Stupid Tax" levied on stupid people...or normal people who do stupid things.
Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
Sorry, I didn't want to get the "repost" beating of a lifetime.
Or maybe it's just an excuse to bump an old ass thread![]()
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: Scholzpdx
Sorry, I didn't want to get the "repost" beating of a lifetime.
Or maybe it's just an excuse to bump an old ass thread![]()
OK, fine...but bumping a thread this old means you automatically qualify to pay the stupid tax. PAY UP!![]()
Originally posted by: SonnyDaze
2 years later and still no fat tax? WTF??
Originally posted by: BassBomb
I would say no, it should be the other way around where healthy people are rewarded.
It exhibits a much more beneficial response when good behaviour is rewarded rather than punishing bad behaviour
