Solution to fight obesity problem our society have?

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
10-1 you don't (clean up the quotes).

Definitely set in argue mode right now, and no I wasnt going to clean up the quotes, and Im still not going to. Its not that big of a deal, seriously. Call it self-importance if you want, but people got scroll wheels and know how to use em.

Gee, wonder how I knew that...

So if I apply your logic to the thread (people have scroll wheels use them) why don't people just use their arms and legs to excersize instead of eating so damn much? No gov't. intervention necessary. No need for extra taxes.

In fact I like your idea, people should use their own resources and stop asking the gov't. to bail us out of things we create outselves.

You're right, don't edit that crap out and don't tax me either. Use you're own resources.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: BD2003

Everything beyond that point is just silly. Especially your assumption that a liberal (real liberal) state is hobbesian, or that new orleans reflects in any way the state that Medicine bear describes.

You must be retarded if you think that the situation in new orleans before the government jumped in is anything but the closest america has come to the hobbesian state of nature in a long time.

Hobbesian State of Nature != to the state the Medicine bear was describing.

Medicine bear didnt really comprehensively describe a state, other than the comment:

The less government interference in our lives the better. As far as I'm concerned the only things the federal government should be doing are:

Defending the country
Delivering the mail
Printing the currency

Not a hobbesian state obviously, but following the line of reasoning to the extreme of the idea that the government should butt out entirely would lead directly to the idea of the hobbesian state. Which was done only to illustrate a point, which would have been obvious if you knew how to read. I in never way stated that the state medicine bear described was a hobbesian state.

Since you apparently have little to add other than critiques of the logic of people actually participating in the discussion, I highly suggest you go over your own first.

My logic is fine. Lets keep the personal attacks to a minimum. If you see a flaw, fine, we can deal with it point by point.

Now, you seem to be a fan of extrapolating people's claims, and medicine bear gave a fairly clear description of the role he feels a state should play, yet you choose to change that description and call it the state of nature. Nobody said this.

Youre the one that started with the personal attacks, for one thing.

Show me where.

An example of your logical flaws: That I'm extrapolating peoples claims and attributing it to them. That I'm not. "Now Im getting the feeling that youd rather live in a society that is as close to the hobbesian state of nature as possible. " is a pretty borderline example of an attribution, but "I'm getting the feeling" is the key here. Meaning "if I'm reading you correctly" aka "please clarify" etc. "As close to as possible" is also another extremely relative term that requires understanding of nuance and proper logical analysis in order to understand completely.

So, the words he wrote were not clear enough? He explicitly stated what he felt the job of government should be. You then extrapolated, and said that he felt that those things should not exist either.

Let me make it clear: I do not feel that the government should be attempting to change society to match somebody's ideal. No meddling in people's lives to make someone's page of statistics look good. No taking money from one person to give to another. User fees worked fine for centuries. What does this mean the goverment can do? Sales taxes for things that 100% of the people use. Example: Military defense, currency, congress.
User fees for other things. Example: Post office being self sufficient. Gas tax pays for roads (mostly does ATM AFAIK). Etc...

What about medical care, you mighy say? Well, how about privatizing it? As in, make it an old people's insurance corporation.

But, you might ask, the insurance company could abuse the elderly. That's where the government's main job comes in. The government has a monopoly on force. The government is the only entity allowed to use force, except in the case of on the spot reaction to others using force. Therefore, the government enforces criminal and contract law, and it is the government's job to ensure that contracts hold water, in which case, those who hold insurance get paid their due.

So, in short, what is the job of government?

1. Enforcing Criminal and Contract Law.
as corrolaries:
* Military defense (the government can't enforce the law if it's territory is not soverign)
* Printing currency. The government prints currency in order to ensure uniformity in the taxes collected. Private entities are free to print and deal in their own currencies, but none do because it would be rather pointless.

 

[phantom309]

The ironic thing is that the increase in Americans who overeat may be directly related to the decrease in Americans who smoke. Nicotine is a very good appetite supressant, and it also numbs the taste buds. In 1970 there weren't nearly as many obese people in the US, but almost half the population smoked. As smoking rates went down, obesity rates went up.

I have no links to back that up; it's just my personal theory.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: phantom309
The ironic thing is that the increase in Americans who overeat may be directly related to the decrease in Americans who smoke. Nicotine is a very good appetite supressant, and it also numbs the taste buds. In 1970 there weren't nearly as many obese people in the US, but almost half the population smoked. As smoking rates went down, obesity rates went up.

I have no links to back that up; it's just my personal theory.

It's certainly an interesting correlation.

 

[BD2003]

Show me where.

Here:

Everything beyond that point is just silly. Especially your assumption that a liberal (real liberal) state is hobbesian, or that new orleans reflects in any way the state that Medicine bear describes.

Alright, I've spent too much time replying, so I'll stop, but look outside your own worldview for a moment, and you'll see that there may be a radically different approach to the problems you see, but it appears impossible because you're so mired in the challenges faced by your solution.

First a dismissal that my argument is silly, and then second that I'm for lack of a better word term to describe it succinctly, walking around with my head up my ass.

So, the words he wrote were not clear enough? He explicitly stated what he felt the job of government should be. You then extrapolated, and said that he felt that those things should not exist either.

I extrapolated to illustrate what would happen if the same thinking that led to his ideas was taking to an extreme, which I in no way implied was an extreme that he advocated. And then proceeded to talk about why this extreme state, which I questioned whether or not Medicine Bear would really approve of, would be a bad idea.

Let me make it clear: I do not feel that the government should be attempting to change society to match somebody's ideal.

How can you say this to me, when you dont even follow it yourself?

No meddling in people's lives to make someone's page of statistics look good. No taking money from one person to give to another. User fees worked fine for centuries. What does this mean the goverment can do? Sales taxes for things that 100% of the people use. Example: Military defense, currency, congress.
User fees for other things. Example: Post office being self sufficient. Gas tax pays for roads (mostly does ATM AFAIK). Etc...

See above. Sounds great on paper, just like communism. In reality, what youre suggesting would lead to a state where wealth is even more concentrated in the hands of the few. Which I personally think is a bad idea, but thats a matter of opinion I suppose.

What about medical care, you mighy say? Well, how about privatizing it? As in, make it an old people's insurance corporation.

But, you might ask, the insurance company could abuse the elderly. That's where the government's main job comes in. The government has a monopoly on force. The government is the only entity allowed to use force, except in the case of on the spot reaction to others using force. Therefore, the government enforces criminal and contract law, and it is the government's job to ensure that contracts hold water, in which case, those who hold insurance get paid their due.

And if an elderly person cant afford insurance, they are left out on the street to die?

So, in short, what is the job of government?
1. Enforcing Criminal and Contract Law.
as corrolaries:
* Military defense (the government can't enforce the law if it's territory is not soverign)
* Printing currency. The government prints currency in order to ensure uniformity in the taxes collected. Private entities are free to print and deal in their own currencies, but none do because it would be rather pointless.

In an ideal world, where everyone has equal opportunity from birth, along with equal circumstances along their life, this would be wonderful. But we do not, and will never live in that world.

Your system is a system where in a non-ideal world, those well to do and those in power stand to benefit the most, and I cant agree with that.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Show me where.

Here:

Everything beyond that point is just silly. Especially your assumption that a liberal (real liberal) state is hobbesian, or that new orleans reflects in any way the state that Medicine bear describes.

Alright, I've spent too much time replying, so I'll stop, but look outside your own worldview for a moment, and you'll see that there may be a radically different approach to the problems you see, but it appears impossible because you're so mired in the challenges faced by your solution.

First a dismissal that my argument is silly, and then second that I'm for lack of a better word term to describe it succinctly, walking around with my head up my ass.

So, the words he wrote were not clear enough? He explicitly stated what he felt the job of government should be. You then extrapolated, and said that he felt that those things should not exist either.

I extrapolated to illustrate what would happen if the same thinking that led to his ideas was taking to an extreme, which I in no way implied was an extreme that he advocated. And then proceeded to talk about why this extreme state, which I questioned whether or not Medicine Bear would really approve of, would be a bad idea.

Let me make it clear: I do not feel that the government should be attempting to change society to match somebody's ideal.

How can you say this to me, when you dont even follow it yourself?

The government is not society. I'm asking the government to stop trying to reshape society. I don't see the problem here.

No meddling in people's lives to make someone's page of statistics look good. No taking money from one person to give to another. User fees worked fine for centuries. What does this mean the goverment can do? Sales taxes for things that 100% of the people use. Example: Military defense, currency, congress.
User fees for other things. Example: Post office being self sufficient. Gas tax pays for roads (mostly does ATM AFAIK). Etc...

See above. Sounds great on paper, just like communism. In reality, what youre suggesting would lead to a state where wealth is even more concentrated in the hands of the few. Which I personally think is a bad idea, but thats a matter of opinion I suppose.

What about medical care, you mighy say? Well, how about privatizing it? As in, make it an old people's insurance corporation.

But, you might ask, the insurance company could abuse the elderly. That's where the government's main job comes in. The government has a monopoly on force. The government is the only entity allowed to use force, except in the case of on the spot reaction to others using force. Therefore, the government enforces criminal and contract law, and it is the government's job to ensure that contracts hold water, in which case, those who hold insurance get paid their due.

And if an elderly person cant afford insurance, they are left out on the street to die?

Maybe they should have planned better? Besides, that's where private charity steps in.

So, in short, what is the job of government?
1. Enforcing Criminal and Contract Law.
as corrolaries:
* Military defense (the government can't enforce the law if it's territory is not soverign)
* Printing currency. The government prints currency in order to ensure uniformity in the taxes collected. Private entities are free to print and deal in their own currencies, but none do because it would be rather pointless.

In an ideal world, where everyone has equal opportunity from birth, along with equal circumstances along their life, this would be wonderful. But we do not, and will never live in that world.

Your system is a system where in a non-ideal world, those well to do and those in power stand to benefit the most, and I cant agree with that.

You claim that wealth will be concentrated, but you don't say why that's a problem. Assuming that the general standard of living continues to rise (I.E. Some people may progress faster than others, but everyone makes progress in objective terms) what's the problem? Additionally, you claim that the 'powerful' would benefit, but, if the law is fair and is restricted to violating written contracts and criminal law, I don't see what power the ordinary man needs fear. You claim that 'my system' would not work in a non-ideal world. Explain why.

 

[BD2003]

You claim that wealth will be concentrated, but you don't say why that's a problem. Assuming that the general standard of living continues to rise (I.E. Some people may progress faster than others, but everyone makes progress in objective terms) what's the problem? Additionally, you claim that the 'powerful' would benefit, but, if the law is fair and is restricted to violating written contracts and criminal law, I don't see what power the ordinary man needs fear. You claim that 'my system' would not work in a non-ideal world. Explain why.

Its a problem because without checks and balances to keep it in control, the rich just get richer and the poor get poorer. Now I dont even know why I need to justify why thats bad. The world has been through too many revolutions over this exact same problem that I dont understand why people still think its a good idea. Sure, the rich can keep all the money, until theres so many poor so downtrodden that they get pissed off and take it all back. I suppose that would be against the law, but all the money in the world and the law wouldnt save those rich people at that point.

I'm just not a big fan of the aristocracy that your system would encourage. Im well aware that its already in place, but it would be ten times worse than it is already if we abided by what youre suggesting.

Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with people being rich. What I do have a problem with is people being disgustingly, ridiculously rich, to the detriment of other people.

Because those people would not be able to maintain their stupdenous level of wealth without the framework and system consisting of the society of people that they live amongst, I feel they owe a certain debt to it.

Call that a matter of opinion, but thered be little doubt that the poor people would eventually rise up and seize it.

 

[BoberFett]

Aristocracy? Your beloved system of socialism brings that about just as well, if you hadn't noticed. The problem with taxation is that it gives people the incentive to control government. If the government taxed only to provide that which was absolutely necessary (military, etc.) you wouldn't see the rich buying their way into the system. As it is now, the rich maintain their stranglehold on wealth because of government, not despite it.

 

[bonkers325]

Originally posted by: CHfan4ever
What about if TV broadcaster were givin the order by the government to not air any publicity of food on television?No food publicity at all.Make it forbidden

Because i think its because of bad representation with the publicity( mcdo with their healty look-a-like publicity).

Government have forbidden the cigarettes publicity on television in our society because it was killing people, so why not food publicity??

Discuss

i reserve my right to eat straight out of a tub of butter

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Aristocracy? Your beloved system of socialism brings that about just as well, if you hadn't noticed. The problem with taxation is that it gives people the incentive to control government. If the government taxed only to provide that which was absolutely necessary (military, etc.) you wouldn't see the rich buying their way into the system. As it is now, the rich maintain their stranglehold on wealth because of government, not despite it.

Youre kidding, right? Without any regulation at all we'd be back in the feudal system.

Youre right on one thing, they wouldnt have to buy into the system. They themselves would BE the system.

Besides, what is absolutely necessary depends on who you are. Youre telling me you would rather live in a country without:

Police, Firemen, EMTs, Park Rangers, the FDA etc? Who's gonna build our highways? Private corporations so they can monopolize them?

I'm against communism and Im not as much of a socialist as you make me out to be, but you pure capitalista guys are seriously pure wackos only concerned with themselves, living in a fantasy world.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Aristocracy? Your beloved system of socialism brings that about just as well, if you hadn't noticed. The problem with taxation is that it gives people the incentive to control government. If the government taxed only to provide that which was absolutely necessary (military, etc.) you wouldn't see the rich buying their way into the system. As it is now, the rich maintain their stranglehold on wealth because of government, not despite it.

Youre kidding, right? Without any regulation at all we'd be back in the feudal system.

Youre right on one thing, they wouldnt have to buy into the system. They themselves would BE the system.

Besides, what is absolutely necessary depends on who you are. Youre telling me you would rather live in a country without:

Police, Firemen, EMTs, Park Rangers, the FDA etc? Who's gonna build our highways? Private corporations so they can monopolize them?

I'm against communism and Im not as much of a socialist as you make me out to be, but you pure capitalista guys are seriously pure wackos only concerned with themselves, living in a fantasy world.

Who says I'm a pure capitalist? Stop tilting at windmills, son. As far as you being a socialist, I'd say that enforcing dietary habits in the name of monetary savings for the citizenry is pretty goddam socialist.

So what's this proof that we'd back under a feudal system without government controls? Movable type did far more to bring us out of feudalism than socialist systems did. Movable type provided freedom, the freedom to teach and learn. Your typical modern socialist nation would withhold inventions like that and save them for the rich. Look at China and the internet.

Government control is slavery, whether that's control of ideas or what's on my dinner plate. Either way, stay the hell out of mine.

 

[RgrPark]

how about fatties don't eat as much.