Calorie Counter

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

What new or revised public policy/law would make it easier for people to maintain a healthy weight?

145791028

Replies

  • CSARdiverCSARdiver Member Posts: 6,261 Member Member Posts: 6,261 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    No law will help, but will make things monumentally worse.

    Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.

    What laws, in your opinion, are driving obesity rates in the US?

    Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.

    What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?

    I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.



    I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?

    More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.

    Like the 18th Amendment?

    Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.

    In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?

    Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...

    ...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.

    I thought you were speaking about laws generally, not in relation to obesity. I asked what laws, in your opinion, were driving obesity rates and should be removed. You asked what laws have positively influenced human behavior and stated that they're a failure if they punish desire so I wrongly assumed you were speaking about your general philosophy of government.

    Overall, I would say that I am completely fine with punishing those who carry out desires to hurt others.

    The 18th Amendment has nothing to do with that. I understand that the part of the stated rationale of Prohibition was to prevent drinkers from hurting others, but the law already is capable of effectively addressing harmful behavior against others without a blanket ban on a substance.

    When you stated that removing laws would have a tremendous benefit in reducing obesity over time, what laws are you referring to?

    The point of criminal law isn't so much to prevent crime, but to limit bad actors within the system, hence the rational behind incarceration. There is little proof that laws prevent crime, but they are effective at identifying and containing individuals who violate law.

    There is little more foolish than to pass a law you cannot possibly enforce.

    The passage of laws limiting affluence have not objectively proven to be effective. As the number of laws have increased, obesity has increased - nearly in direct proportion.

    Removal of all "nanny state" laws has potential to positively influence behavior. These serve as nothing more than delayed ramification structures and window dressing.

    Asking what law can be passed is simply asking the wrong question.

    This requires change management on a global scale, which requires Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources, and an Action Plan. Before any of this occurs there must be a recognized need and will. If history serves as any indicator the recognition will be in hindsight.

    I'm still confused as to what laws you think we should repeal. Do you have specific laws in mind?

    I get that you're generally opposed to "nanny state" laws, but what specific laws do you think are making people fatter?

    Objectively. Weight discrimination law.
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Member Posts: 24,291 Member Member Posts: 24,291 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    No law will help, but will make things monumentally worse.

    Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.

    What laws, in your opinion, are driving obesity rates in the US?

    Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.

    What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?

    I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.



    I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?

    More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.

    Like the 18th Amendment?

    Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.

    In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?

    Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...

    ...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.

    I thought you were speaking about laws generally, not in relation to obesity. I asked what laws, in your opinion, were driving obesity rates and should be removed. You asked what laws have positively influenced human behavior and stated that they're a failure if they punish desire so I wrongly assumed you were speaking about your general philosophy of government.

    Overall, I would say that I am completely fine with punishing those who carry out desires to hurt others.

    The 18th Amendment has nothing to do with that. I understand that the part of the stated rationale of Prohibition was to prevent drinkers from hurting others, but the law already is capable of effectively addressing harmful behavior against others without a blanket ban on a substance.

    When you stated that removing laws would have a tremendous benefit in reducing obesity over time, what laws are you referring to?

    The point of criminal law isn't so much to prevent crime, but to limit bad actors within the system, hence the rational behind incarceration. There is little proof that laws prevent crime, but they are effective at identifying and containing individuals who violate law.

    There is little more foolish than to pass a law you cannot possibly enforce.

    The passage of laws limiting affluence have not objectively proven to be effective. As the number of laws have increased, obesity has increased - nearly in direct proportion.

    Removal of all "nanny state" laws has potential to positively influence behavior. These serve as nothing more than delayed ramification structures and window dressing.

    Asking what law can be passed is simply asking the wrong question.

    This requires change management on a global scale, which requires Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources, and an Action Plan. Before any of this occurs there must be a recognized need and will. If history serves as any indicator the recognition will be in hindsight.

    So when you said
    CSARdiver wrote: »

    Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.

    you were speaking more broadly and philosophically, not suggesting there are current laws that, if removed, would help ease the obesity crisis? I think that's all @janejellyroll was asking, and was my thought when I read your original post.

    This was the intent.

    There's a good deal of evidence suggesting that obesity (and other lifestyle diseases) are rooted in lack of purpose. Removal of laws that remove or diminish individual purpose have potential to put this trend in the other direction.

    Thanks for clarifying, I was having trouble understanding exactly what you were arguing.

    I guess I don't really feel that any laws are currently removing or diminishing my individual purpose. There are some laws I disagree with and some trends in increasing legislation that I'm troubled by, but I don't feel that any laws are actually changing who I am personally (although that might be what someone who is crushed by the "nanny state" would think).
  • CSARdiverCSARdiver Member Posts: 6,261 Member Member Posts: 6,261 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    No law will help, but will make things monumentally worse.

    Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.

    What laws, in your opinion, are driving obesity rates in the US?

    Desire and ability are the primary drivers of obesity. Unless you are going to address these two root causes, then all else is nothing but show and wasted resources.

    What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?

    I submit that those rewarding positive behavior tend to be successful, while those punishing desires tend to fail.



    I think I misunderstood what you wrote initially. When you said "Removing laws would have tremendous benefit over time" I thought you were referring to specific laws you'd like to see removed in order to address obesity. I think instead you were stating that there would be a general "tremendous benefit" to removing laws?

    More generally, if someone's desires are going to cause me harm, I consider it a success if a law makes it less likely they'll choose to fulfill that desire.

    Like the 18th Amendment?

    Interesting that your mind went there, but I was thinking more along the lines of laws against rape and assault. Someone choosing to have a beer, that's their business.

    In a discussion of policy shaping eating behavior (food and drug law) and you think of rape and assault (criminal law)?

    Someone choosing to eat surplus calories, that's their business...

    ...also their responsibility to manage the ramifications.

    I thought you were speaking about laws generally, not in relation to obesity. I asked what laws, in your opinion, were driving obesity rates and should be removed. You asked what laws have positively influenced human behavior and stated that they're a failure if they punish desire so I wrongly assumed you were speaking about your general philosophy of government.

    Overall, I would say that I am completely fine with punishing those who carry out desires to hurt others.

    The 18th Amendment has nothing to do with that. I understand that the part of the stated rationale of Prohibition was to prevent drinkers from hurting others, but the law already is capable of effectively addressing harmful behavior against others without a blanket ban on a substance.

    When you stated that removing laws would have a tremendous benefit in reducing obesity over time, what laws are you referring to?

    The point of criminal law isn't so much to prevent crime, but to limit bad actors within the system, hence the rational behind incarceration. There is little proof that laws prevent crime, but they are effective at identifying and containing individuals who violate law.

    There is little more foolish than to pass a law you cannot possibly enforce.

    The passage of laws limiting affluence have not objectively proven to be effective. As the number of laws have increased, obesity has increased - nearly in direct proportion.

    Removal of all "nanny state" laws has potential to positively influence behavior. These serve as nothing more than delayed ramification structures and window dressing.

    Asking what law can be passed is simply asking the wrong question.

    This requires change management on a global scale, which requires Vision, Skills, Incentives, Resources, and an Action Plan. Before any of this occurs there must be a recognized need and will. If history serves as any indicator the recognition will be in hindsight.

    So when you said
    CSARdiver wrote: »

    Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.

    you were speaking more broadly and philosophically, not suggesting there are current laws that, if removed, would help ease the obesity crisis? I think that's all @janejellyroll was asking, and was my thought when I read your original post.

    This was the intent.

    There's a good deal of evidence suggesting that obesity (and other lifestyle diseases) are rooted in lack of purpose. Removal of laws that remove or diminish individual purpose have potential to put this trend in the other direction.

    Thanks for clarifying, I was having trouble understanding exactly what you were arguing.

    I guess I don't really feel that any laws are currently removing or diminishing my individual purpose. There are some laws I disagree with and some trends in increasing legislation that I'm troubled by, but I don't feel that any laws are actually changing who I am personally (although that might be what someone who is crushed by the "nanny state" would think).

    No worries - I apologize if I conveyed any ill intent. Addition or removal of a single law has little direct impact, but dramatic impact over time. I tend to focus on how law shapes generations and the long game as opposed to the short term. I look at all the laws passed in the US in 1980-1990 and the resulting damage done to the millennials. If we understood the impact in hindsight would you have done the same?

    Neither do I, but then again my livelihood isn't negatively impacted by law - or I have adapted to this and managed to continue a live with purpose.

  • CSARdiverCSARdiver Member Posts: 6,261 Member Member Posts: 6,261 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    No law will help, but will make things monumentally worse.

    Removing laws on the other hand would have tremendous benefit over time.

    What laws, in your opinion, are driving obesity rates in the US?


    What laws, objectively and historically, have positively influenced human behavior?


    The other day I really wanted to kill somebody, but I didn't want to spend the next six years wearing orange.

    Did the law stop you or did you contemplate the ramifications of committing this action?

    ...and I agree with you personally, but the evidence does not support this.
  • The_EnginerdThe_Enginerd Member Posts: 3,898 Member Member Posts: 3,898 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    FireOpalCO wrote: »
    Single payer healthcare, including nurse visits and dietitians.
    32 hour workweek.
    Investment in mass transit systems over highways
    Longer school day with mandatory % of time in recess/PE/sports
    Tax breaks for companies that buy desk bikes/treadmills, provide a cafeteria, or pay for gym memberships or onsite doctor visits, transit cards, bike racks, etc.
    Increase the percentage of open space, bike trails, etc. in development codes.
    Building codes that require open staircases under a certain story height? (People are more likely to use the stairs if they are big and visible vs. hidden behind a door looking like they're for emergencies only.)

    To add to this (because it's more or less what I was thinking), better bike infrastructure (this, for me, goes beyond "bike trails") and an overhaul on school lunch programs.

    Tax breaks for bike commuting. For people who are putting less wear and tear on the roads, and not using up parking spaces - which people get into knife fights over.

    You already get a tax break by not paying motor fuel taxes since not buying gas for bike commutimg.

    lol wut

    Not paying a tax on an item I'm not consuming isn't a tax break. I could say you're getting a tax break by not buying marijuana in Colorado or Washington, that would be just as nonsense.

    You are getting bike paths and roads paid for in large part by motor fuel taxes and not contributing.

    I use both a car and bike, including biking on street and paths, and do contribute through the various taxes. But even if I did not own and use a car, that's not really true.
    https://frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/who-pays-roads
    https://frontiergroup.org/sites/default/files/reports/Who Pays for Roads vUS.pdf
    edited March 2019
  • CSARdiverCSARdiver Member Posts: 6,261 Member Member Posts: 6,261 Member
    If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.

    This would be the ideal, but would destroy a 66 billion dollar industry.
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Member Posts: 24,291 Member Member Posts: 24,291 Member
    If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.

    Who would be the authority on this though?
  • MoiAussi93MoiAussi93 Member Posts: 1,947 Member Member Posts: 1,947 Member
    If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.

    Who would be the authority on this though?

    Exactly the problem. The reality is there is no consensus on nutrition. I have read numerous studies on various nutritional and weight loss topics...you can find one to support just about any view. The best you can do is read up and make your own informed judgment on how you want to eat.

    The science on nutritional issues is simply not definitive enough.

    The only established "facts" are that if you eat less you will lose weight. Frankly, everybody already knows this. I am tired of hearing some people claim that people are fat because they just don't know any better. That is ridiculous. Just eat less!!! You don't need studies and nutritionists and "experts" and classes and government sanctioned websites to tell you what is obvious.
  • CSARdiverCSARdiver Member Posts: 6,261 Member Member Posts: 6,261 Member
    If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.

    Who would be the authority on this though?

    Evidently the European Union.
  • FireOpalCOFireOpalCO Member, Premium Posts: 641 Member Member, Premium Posts: 641 Member
    If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.

    Who would be the authority on this though?

    Scientists? If it's completely false, can't be put up. If it's a "well it could be correlation, not causation", or "more research needed", say so.

    Basically we need peer reviewed websites.
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Member Posts: 24,291 Member Member Posts: 24,291 Member
    FireOpalCO wrote: »
    If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.

    Who would be the authority on this though?

    Scientists? If it's completely false, can't be put up. If it's a "well it could be correlation, not causation", or "more research needed", say so.

    Basically we need peer reviewed websites.

    I'm as sympathetic as anyone can be to frustration about misinformation about weight loss online, but "completely false" is still a definition that can be weaponized and misused. We're basically talking about silencing people via a politically administered process.

    I'm not even sure that it would be that effective at meeting the stated goals, as many weight loss claims aren't "completely false" but instead based on not-yet-proven suppositions or just misleading.

    Is Jason Fung, for example, "completely false"? In what I've read, his writing is a clever mixture of established, relatively uncontroversial facts that are then spun into supposition. So what exactly is he going to be barred from posting? And if he disagrees that a statement is "completely false," how does he get his right to speak restored?
  • CSARdiverCSARdiver Member Posts: 6,261 Member Member Posts: 6,261 Member
    FireOpalCO wrote: »
    If we had a law that only factual information about weight management was allowed to be posted on the internet.

    Who would be the authority on this though?

    Scientists? If it's completely false, can't be put up. If it's a "well it could be correlation, not causation", or "more research needed", say so.

    Basically we need peer reviewed websites.

    If and only if we relied on actual objective evidence, then there would be much fewer panics. "Ground breaking" to the scientific community now means a conventional shift greater than 5%. There's always that one rogue "scientist" who pushes the boundaries of evidence and inserts bias.
Sign In or Register to comment.