Legislation |
 |
6% (4) |
Education |
|
68.7% (46) |
Neither |
|
17.9% (12) |
Poll: Legislation or Education? Pages PREV 1 2 3 | |
So the argument hidden in that paragraph is: Just because you want to help people doesn't entitle you to make their choices for them. Why not? Why, if I'm the government, I have an executive to enact my laws, I'm bearing a mandate from my people, I have my people's best interests in mind, and good grounds on which to base my actions, can I not help?
Of course C.S. Lewis would say that. He saw in the Nazi and Communist regimes what taking interference to its extreme could do. Besides, I don't place much stock in quoting random people as if it really backs up your argument. C.S. Lewis was an author of books, whose professorship was not in anything political, but in Medieval and Renaissance English. He was a clever man, but simply quoting him doesn't really say much beyond 'this person agrees with me, he was good, therefore this argument is good', and I'm sure you're confident enough in your beliefs about freedom that you don't need to resort, ironically, to appeals to authority. Especially when most of those authorities were writing at times when tyranny was genuinely a problem, and not the go-to word for people who simply didn't like being told what to do regarding anything at all. Of course, now, this has devolved from an argument regarding food in particular to government interference in general. It'll be the same tired use of hyperbole and overuse of words like 'tyranny' 'dictator' 'slippery slope' and 'rights' from the people against it, and the same boring moderation and use of the words 'extent' 'should'. Sigh.
It's not bullshit, and I'd rather you didn't belittle my opinion as such. It's a sincere desire to aid our fellow man. FYI, I'm 5'10", ~55kg (120lbs), and quite fit. As much as the mainly American anti-government crowd might like to think otherwise, those 'meddlesome busybodies' have done a lot of good. | |
I have the view that government should be our elected servant, not our parent. Even though you have good intentions and even if most of the people want you to do it, doesn't make it right. What you want to do is a form of bullying. I don't like being bullied. When it comes to personal well being I'm a big fan of individual responsibility. I quoted C.S. Lewis because he said it better than I could. I'm not sure why you automatically reject the slippery slope argument, because it seems to me that the people who want everyone to be happy and healthy will never stop until they get their way. And they won't get their way because their methods are immoral and authoritarian. | |
Yes yes, I know your view. You already said all of that. What I want to do is hardly bullying, now is it?
If I was to start whole-sale banning food products, that would be authoritarian. As it is, I advocate prods rather than shoves. I think you should make it harder to indulge unhealthy habits, not impossible. I reject the slippery slope argument because it's evidently fallacious. The slippery-slope argument is that a little paternalistic care leads inevitably to a totalitarian state. This is clearly not the case, because many states exist with degrees of paternalistic care which are not totalitarian. What makes their methods immoral? | |
So what you advocate for is a lesser form of bullying. If it doesn't give the results you want I'd expect you to take it further. It's immoral because it's a minor form of government bullying and collectively punishing people. | |
I am going to say both. That is legislation that forces the actual nutritional information and ingredients be placed on all food items and be available at restaurants, as well as education that actually helps. For education to help it must start early, and must be comprehensive. Possible including a nutrition session in with PE, as well as having PE every day. Parents also need to be educated, but I do not have any ideas on how to pull that off other than mandating parenting courses before birth. | |
It's ironic that the same conservatives who favor "education" over legislation are the ones trying to cut teacher salaries, bust unions, and close schools. Education indeed. | |
Not forgetting how conservatives favor abstinence only programs over proper sex ed. | |
If you assume that the only reason governments get their way is because they have guns then, yes, I suppose you could say that. I don't make that assumption
I've already addressed the slippery slope fallacy.
The bullying point is iffy at best. As for collectively punishing people, yes, I suppose it is to a small extent, if one should wish to spin it that way. Of course the punishment immediately comes with a reward in the form of cheaper healthy foods. So I don't really see the problem. People can still eat what they want if they want to badly enough. Why is that immoral? | |
But what do you say to those of us who don't WANT your "aid"? I have to pay more for what I like because you have a need to feel useful? Thanks! | |
It could be answered in both, whether it is right or not is always for argument. Education for sure can always be improved, and in general for that front I'd say in America it should be one of our top 3 expenditures. As for legislation, "Is it within the government's right to tell each citizen how they should eat/what their bodies should be like?" I personally say no, in part as people vary heavily, and indeed some of us do have genetics to blame for our physique, but also in part on moral and philosophical views, I'll try to explain... Should people live healthy and happy lives? Yes, but happiness is not solely dependent on people being physically healthy, fit, etc. For some this is a factor, for others it is not, and I know a good number of people who are fat and far from being unhappy. Could they be happier if they were more healthy? Maybe, but they are happy as is, so there's no need to fix what is working for them. Off of that, yes we could potentially improve their lives, but people are not machines, if we are happy and living well, we don't need to be upgraded, meddled with or enhanced. On the front of being a more productive member of society, I'm somewhat lost in this argument. Most jobs these days don't have a high physical requirement, thus people don't worry over it too much in that regard. As is in the US, we still work the 40 hours or more a week, and there are always efficiency improvements occurring, so we're always doing even more from year to year. In other countries around the world, 40 hours a week is unheard of, and working overtime is a rare thing. (at least, as I recall from some chatting with mates over in europe a year back when we got talking about work). I think the bigger issue in here is people contributing creatively to their home nation, but this isn't tied to whether someone is physically fit or not, but an issue of mental stimulation, and that's going off topic... To comment on the 'sitting at home eating twinkies scenario' in correlation to being a more productive member of society. If a person chooses to do so and they've already given their hours at work or run some .com business, then go right ahead. We are human, we need our 'me' time, our ways of escape(looks at website name...) and relaxation. So long as someones downtime doesn't cause actual harm to others I'm fine with it. Besides, humanity doesn't rely on the masses to contribute major advances to society, it is the few true entrepreneurs and thinkers who advance us, the masses just do all the gruntwork and keep society going.(If it were the opposite, then we should all be in space with what several billion people to contribute to society and advance us as a pace like never before) ....oookay I need to get on topic more. For education, it really needs to be more than a quarter in high school, and actually command attention as opposed to something you drift through, and phrased that way, it needs to be introduced before high school, as by then we've already established a good part of our dietary habits. With knowledge one can make a choice, without knowledge one only has their habits, and if people are unaware(or apathetic) to nutrition they won't try to self-educate either. However, it still remains that the main obese demographic is in the low income, and they eat what they can reliably afford to feed their family and make them feel full, educating the kids won't solve the problem here as they don't control their food intake. If we wish to solve the problem via education it will take a couple generations in order for habits to be broken and remade so that the new generations of low income families will be used to eating healthy aswell. As for price manipulation, that is just a bad case waiting to happen. Prices stabilize as they do based on costs, production, and consumption. In the past years people want lots of food and cheap, so the infrastructure got set up to meet those demands. As healthy food was in shorter demand it isn't as developed for mass production, and thus the costs are higher overall, even moreso if you try to switch the majority of Americans(or any obese-ish nation) over to healthy foods with any rapidity. I want people to live happy and healthy lives, and yes I would like to see people do so by being physically healthy and fit, but I don't want it to be forced, it needs to be chosen. (Kinda like in the matrix, "So long as people are given a choice, they will accept it, even if they're only aware of that choice at the subconscious level"...tho I might have botched it a bit) | |
Heh. Nice spin. You make it sound like it isn't actually a help and you make it sound like the civil service exists purely because there are needy people. Props to you. Oh, I dunno. If I was in government I probably wouldn't bother really arguing with everyone because everyone will hate me no matter what I do, especially in America. Depends who you're addressing, too. Something along the lines of "It's for the greater good" would be running through my mind, but I'd know there'd be no point in saying that, because they'd just throw a tantrum about not being able to do something they want, even if its bad for them, as easily as they previously could. It'd be like negotiating with a toddler who wants to eat fries all day, so you have to fight for every pea that goes into their mouths. The only difference is that this individual, now fully grown, has extra concepts with which to debate like 'natural freedoms' and such. It really is quite dull arguing with US conservatives/libertarians. I only ever end up frustrated at the single-mindedness and inflexibility of the general group. Maybe I should just stop trying. | |
I think you want to change your name to Andrew Wiggin. | |
Who? | |
A differing opinion is "spin", eh? Much easier to dismiss that way, I suppose, since there can't possibly be two or more valid perspectives on an issue. Your very tone indicates you're just as big a blind ideologue as those you rail against, just from the opposite viewpoint. Glass houses and stones and such.
If it's not a service I want...how is it aid? Can I take your car and leave you a bike because I know what's better for you than you do?
And you're making it sound like I'm incapable of making even the most fundemental decisions and need someone else to think for me.
Again, your narrow-mindedness shows through. It's easy to say "But it's for the greater good!"...except that there's no one true 'greater good' and no one true way to get there. Why does the whole world have to line up in lockstep and achieve the same goals the same way? Are we Borg now and I missed something?
Hi pot! My name's kettle! | |
| |
Not quite. I meant genuine spin. Careful choice of words to infer a particular meaning beyond the literal words. Rhetoric. This is what you said, with the spin underlined.:
1. Capitalization of WANT draws emphasis to the word. Such emphasis implies that wants are more important than needs. Basically, that little capitalization helps paint me (even though I'm not the one in control) as some kind of despot who doesn't care for the wants of his people. This is not the case. 2. Quotes around "aid" indicate sarcasm. They also, more importantly, belittle the use of the word, and as such that argument as a whole. It can be argued to be aid, it can also be argued not to be aid. The quotes subliminally erase the first argument. 3. Use of 'you' shows targeting of me personally, rather than the idea I support. 4. Belittles my intent. This entire idea of tax/subsidy price manipulation rests fundamentally on good intentions (it's for the best) so belittling that intent as worthless or the product of some personal flaw undermines the whole thing. 5. Usage of rhetorical "Thanks", similar to "duh", implies inherent stupidity in my argument, and also belittles it. It also, combined with the usage of "you" generates an analogy in the reader's mind of one person forcing their will upon another person when, really, most politicians in a Democracy act as tools for one group to force their will upon another, as that is what a Democracy essentially is.
This is really two separate arguments. The first questions if something unwanted is still a help. The other is a rather poor analogy. First: even if you don't want something, it can still be helpful for you. The child analogy I rather hurriedly spat out helps to illustrate this point. Second: In my argument, it is the utility maximizer that is subsidized. When it comes to cars and bikes, in the modern world, the car is really the object that provides the most utility to most people. As such, this is the opposite of what I would do, as it illustrates the subsidizing of the less beneficial item.
Except I'm not. I've stressed throughout that you still choose. Your choices are just mildly influenced.
I was speculating. In any case, this is a good illustrator of the response I'd expect. In a very tenuous, emotive, contrived-if-you-choose-to-see-it-as-such way I'm making people do something they don't want to do. There's no escaping that in the eyes of the critics, because the hasty generalization and slippery-slope (slight infringement = totalitarian) seems so self-evident, which is why there's no point arguing, because I think I a different way.
Perhaps. I can't help but feel I'm more flexible in my outlook than US conservatives/libertarians are, though. For them it's Freedom>all no matter what. For me it's a case-by-case affair judging the relative pros and cons of each side. I like to think it's more pragmatic than idealistic. Not that idealism is bad, but, like anything, too much of it is a massive pain.
So what's the implication of that name? It seems like it could be many things judging by the plot synopsis. | |
My point is that I don't trust people like you not to take things several steps further. If your program doesn't effectively reduce obesity then because you care so much about others welfare you'd probably feel compelled to take further legislative action. Agree?
As for why collective punishment is immoral and should be kept to a minimum; If you punish everyone because you don't like the actions of some you are being very unfair to those who behaved well. If one kid cheats on a test and you give everyone an F, you are being unfair. Being fat is punishment enough for eating unhealthy, but to add extra taxes too is an additional punishment, regardless of your intentions. How would you like it if the government put heavy taxes on videogames, because they consider them unhealty? Freedom is a precious thing. Even when people make bad personal decisions the answer is not to hack away at freedom trying to make everyone happy and healthy. Less freedom = less hapiness | |
"People like me?" Sounds like you dislike me personally already. Well no. The aim is to decrease obesity, not decrease freedom. If this method doesn't work, then something else should be tried. To continue with something that's obviously failing is actually insane.
Well I'm not sure it's really a punishment. But let's work with that a priori.
The stigma and general feeling of uselessness, as well as loss of income, resulting from being unemployed are surely punishment enough. Why cut the benefits further because a few people mooch? Besides, with the proportion of US citizens being overweight or obese being 74.1 % according to forbes, it's hardly punishing the majority for the actions of a minority, anyway.
Games in particular? Hmmm. I'd actually support that, but that's more due to my personal experience with games rather than any kind of data analysis. I'm biased in that example, but for reasons other than my political ideology.
When people are making such decisions as to seriously endanger their health and impose themselves as a burden upon others (which is what obesity does), isn't it ok to then limit their options? I'm afraid I don't understand your comparison of society and a skinner box. Could you elaborate?
I'm not sure it's so clear-cut a line. If I were to graph it (because I'm a total nerd xD) I'd wager it'll be something like this:
It's very rough. I think that total freedom or total (whatever you define the opposite of feedom to be) makes people completely miserable. Giving people freedoms makes them happy to a point, but eventually they start to take freedom for granted, they already have those they desire to keep them happy, and so any extra freedoms don't grant the same utility as those that came before. Kind of a law of diminishing returns thing. | |
Rest assured, we feel the same way about your arguments after a while. The feeling isn't just a one-way thing, sir. In fact, when arguing with someone with what is basically a polar-opposite viewpoint to your own, it will always seem to drag on and on no matter how reasonable both parties are. That's just the nature of debate. In any case, what you fail to realize is that "For the greater good" isn't all good. There is a saying that describes American government: "Majority rule, minority rights". Essentially, that means that while the majority makes the rules, they can't infringe on the rights of the minority. Now let's put aside the "For the greater good!" argument for a second (and all my objections to that nanny-state). Let's also assume that, upon taking a vote, 60% of people are in favour of this and 40% are opposed. It would still not be right. You should really look at that 40% who are opposed. Why do they oppose it? Well, probably because they eat a cheeseburger more than once in a blue moon. Among these people, look at some subgroups. 1- The overweight, "3 Giant greasy burgers a day" type. Probably the kind of person you're trying to protect, right? Okay then... 2- Poor people who can't afford to eat a home cooked meal every night. I can get a full meal at Taco Bell for $3. There is nothing I can cook at home that will provide a full meal for me for that price. Plus, it tastes good. (and your price legislation isn't likely to bring the price of all those "healthy meals" down to this level anyway, so all you're accomplishing is increasing the price of the cheapest option, which is bad) 3- Rushed people with no time. Same as above, some people just don't have time to eat at home. They're rushing from school to work, then barely have time to do homework before bed. So, in order to get food at all, they need a quick alternative that won't break the bank. Yet again, 2 minutes at a Taco Bell and no more than $5 will get you a quick meal you can eat in your car on the way to work. Now, if you believe all the economic threads on this forum, then there are apparently a *lot* of poor people in the world. Far more than middle class or rich. You would expect example 1 to be mainly people who can afford to over indulge, and examples 2 and 3 to be poorer people is a more desperate situation. So, your "good intentions" are hurting the lowest class of citizen more than they are punishing the over-indulgent upper middle class. How is that "For the greater good?" --- ...and I would argue with you on the issue of "If they don't want your help, is it still help?" issue, although as that is an ideological issue that is likely to result in an endless "back-and-forth" argument between us, I think I'll pass for now. What I will say though is that I do not believe that the ends justify the means. Every action must stand on it's own merit, and not that of an expected good thing to come from it. When you emphasize the "For the greater good" part, I don't look at it and think "Oh, he's trying to <help with obesity/make people healthier/etc...>", as those are indirect consequences of your action. Instead, I see what you are actually doing. Namely, taxing more on certain things and adding more fees, which will invariably inconvenience a lot of people who depend on those things in the process. Think of it this way- If it wasn't the government doing this, but a private corporation, then it would be seen as price fixing: something that is currently illegal. Now, hear me out for a second. Let's say the food providers of the world (The people who grow the vegetables and raise the livestock) all got together and decided to sell their products at a higher price when selling to fast food restaurants, and a lower price when selling to healthy food manufacturers. This would do pretty much the same thing as your taxes- Increase the cost of unhealthy food and slightly decrease the cost of healthy food. The end result is exactly the same. The means, however, would get the lot of them thrown in jail. | |
If it didn't work it would be unlikely to be repealed because: Government would want to keep the income. Politicians don't like to admit they were wrong. Just like tobacco taxes are often raised and seldom lowered.
It's a regressive tax. You may call it tough love, wheras I call it nanny state bullying and sticking it to the poor.
As I expected your desire to control peoples behavior isn't limited to food. Have you even considered the economic damage that your taxes would do to these industries, i.e revenue decreases and job losses?
Since total freedom would be anarchy I believe your graph is at least close to correct. Though I'd say we disagree where exactly we are on that graph. Also the shape of the plot would be different for each person. | |
EDIT: double post | |
But that's the thing. I'm not polar opposite, but it seems like none of them can see me as anything other than that. It genuinely frustrates me. I mean, look what JRslinger says about my motivations further down. It ticks me right off.
Thank you for actually trying to counter the example. Yup, you're right, I concede the taxation thing. It's a flat tax, which isn't something I'd advocate. I still think healthy food should be made cheaper, though, because obesity is really becoming a problem. The options besides taxing/subsidies are legislation (banning foods), which is out of the question, so really it falls down to the government simply begging people to eat better. Somehow I get the feeling that it would be construed as some kind of propaganda or something, even though it's factually correct. Sigh. It must absolutely suck to be in the US government with a sincere desire to help people. No wonder vested interests play such a big role.
I'm neither here nor there on whether or not the ends justify the means all the time. Depends on the situation. In this case, due to the pointing out that it's a flat tax, I'm inclined to agree.
This is a really unlikely situation, you know. Really unlikely. On principal I don't like collusive oligopolies, and I understand why they're illegal. I don't think the analogy really stands, though, because the tax would't be fixing prices, merely adjusting them. The markets still decide the price upon which the tax is leveed.
What a relief. We've shifted from what I would do to what the current tendency is for others to do.
Something I never thought I'd hear you say. Although you've still not justified why it's bullying. However, yes, you are right, it is a regressive tax. Those are bad. The subsidy, however- would you still disagree with that?
Don't you dare make assumptions about my motivations and personality. You don't know me. Christ almighty. I'm not some Stalin just waiting to happen given any power.
Do I really need to answer this? Of course I have. Perhaps if the Tariffs the US places on imported food were lifted the US food industry might economize further in response to foreign competition, increasing efficiency and driving all food prices down enough for people to be able to afford healthier options. That would lose people jobs, too, but it would have a better result in the end. | |
I think subsidies should be limited to industries vital to national security that need them to stay intact.
You've already listed two ways that you want the government to try to make people healthier at the cost of some freedom. I expect there are others. You might not be a Stalin wannabe but you do lean in an authoritarian direction. Positions of power are often filled by power hungry people. Your desired policies give them more control over us. | |
Wait, what? Two? There's the tax thing, which I've since retracted as it was pointed out to be a regressive tax. What was the other thing? The whole you're 'authoritarian' thing. It's just wrong. It seems like you're just trying to slander me as such to discredit me. I don't lean in an 'authoritarian' direction at all:
Authoritarian is China, not me. You're comparing apples and oranges by accusing me of being even in the slightest bit authoritarian. Being authoritarian is not the same thing as simply influencing prices. If I banned certain foods outright, then you might have a leg to stand on. If I banned the Bill of Rights and believed that people by default should have no freedom, then I'd be authoritarian. I don't think that. As it is, you're making a mountain out of a tiny, tiny molehill. | |
I am gonna go with the "neither" option. Hows about people stfu and deal with their own business. Someone wants to be a fat bastard, them them be a fat bastard. Only person they need to please is themselves. | |
This is definitely how I think the "legislate" option should work; it shouldn't be directed at individual foods or people (no banning anything, or telling people what they shouldn't eat) it should be directed at larger-scale operations. Legislation should further regulate what corporations can and can't do -- like with cigarettes, unhealthy foods/additives shouldn't be mislabeled or intend to mislead people, and they shouldn't be marketed to young children, and they shouldn't be snuck into things to make them more profitable or addictive. HFCS is in the most bizarre foods (and "foods") nowadays and that's purely because the subsidies make it cheap and plentiful, and corporations don't care how terrible that stuff is for you. Legislation could maybe also be used to solve the "food desert" problem people have already mentioned. Getting healthier foods and actual grocery stores into poor neighborhoods (rather than forcing people to feed their families from fast food joints and convenience stores) would do a lot to improve the health of the population -- and it wouldn't require banning fast food or restricting what people spend their money/food stamps on. | |
We also live in a time where the cheapest foods are the ones that are worst for you. Legislation to allow easy access to better foods but mostly keeping people from still choosing the "bad" prepackaged stuff using education. So combine the two. | |
You know why no one has quoted you yet? Because you're right. | |
Is that sincerity? Anyway, one person quoted me, I just never got back to them. | |
education. we'd pay lower health insurance rates with healthier people. (no reliable facts that it lowers rates yada yada... yeah because a private company is going to fuck you and make money no matter what smarty pants, thats the point) any attempt to legislate would be shot down as liberal baby sitting. the conservatives would tell you to drink that nacho cheese and not give a shit if we all pay for it. after all, politicians have the tax payer funded health care we're not allowed to have. BONUS: more hot chicks. or you could have a modicum of self respect *shrug* | |
I am being as sincere as the internet allows. | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 | |
I must have missed the part where we all got together and decided to impose our will on everyone else. Seriously, why do any of you give a FUCK? I've yet to find any reliable numbers indicating that it negatively affects health care costs (in fact, some even posit the claim that the shorter lifespan is beneficial to everyone else). If someone wants to be fat, let them be. It doesn't hurt you in the slightest.
In regards to the "I just want them to be healthy" BULLSHIT I'm going to wager that most of the people that say that have been downing energy drinks, sodas, eating starchy foods, smoking, drinking, doing drugs, etc. and still made these remarks from the impunity of their computers. Admit it, you don't care if they're healthy. You care that they're skinny.