WHO: Governments should regulate fast food to slow obesity
Replies
-
I think they're in Avalon. I know Self Control crashed on Fae Vivian's couch for awhile.
They're apparently gone. Now what?
Bingo.What happened to individual responsibility and self control?0 -
The government needs to start treating us like adults not wayward children. Those who don't care will over consume and become obese, that is their choice and it should be. Those of us who want to be healthier will work at it without government interference.
Having said that, I believe that those involved in high-risk behavior, i.e., obesity, smoking, excessive alcohol intake, etc., should either have to pay for healthcare expenses directly related to the activity, or the health insurance companies should be allow to charge more to insure them.
Instead of the government "regulating" anything, what about incentives? Tax breaks for those of us who lose weight (or exercise), stop smoking, etc. It would all be voluntary but I'm not sure how it would work. Subsidized Nutrisystem or Jenny Craig? We keep our grocery receipts and the government reimburses us a percentage of fruits and veggies and "healthy foods" on our taxes? We do a weigh-in, then are refunded a certain amount of money for every pound lost? Cholesterol checks? Alcoholics and recreational drug users would have to take periodic blood or urine tests. For smokers, I guess yearly chest X-rays?
:huh:0 -
The government needs to start treating us like adults not wayward children. Those who don't care will over consume and become obese, that is their choice and it should be. Those of us who want to be healthier will work at it without government interference.
Having said that, I believe that those involved in high-risk behavior, i.e., obesity, smoking, excessive alcohol intake, etc., should either have to pay for healthcare expenses directly related to the activity, or the health insurance companies should be allow to charge more to insure them.
Instead of the government "regulating" anything, what about incentives? Tax breaks for those of us who lose weight (or exercise), stop smoking, etc. It would all be voluntary but I'm not sure how it would work. Subsidized Nutrisystem or Jenny Craig? We keep our grocery receipts and the government reimburses us a percentage of fruits and veggies and "healthy foods" on our taxes? We do a weigh-in, then are refunded a certain amount of money for every pound lost? Cholesterol checks? Alcoholics and recreational drug users would have to take periodic blood or urine tests. For smokers, I guess yearly chest X-rays?
:huh:
The first half of your post talks about how the government should get out of personal health entirely.
The second half of your post is a list of ways the government should get heavily involved in personal health.0 -
I think they should just have narrower doors on the entrance to fast food joints. Or like, Y-shaped ones, so bodybuilders can get in but you keep the fatties out.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
LMAO!!!! That's the most creative solution I've ever heard! I love it! Of course, if all the doors were made so only bodybuilders could get in, fast food joints would go out of business fast (I know several bodybuilders but none of them eat at McDonalds enough to keep the doors open!)0 -
Maybe I should give a somewhat less flippant answer.
I think they're in Avalon. I know Self Control crashed on Fae Vivian's couch for awhile.
They're apparently gone. Now what?
Bingo.What happened to individual responsibility and self control?
Should people be responsible for their diets? Absolutely. Should people refrain from committing crimes? Again, absolutely... but any government which would base its policy towards crime on moral platitudes would be irresponsible.
Does this mean governments should try to regulate their citizen's diet to a certain extent? I don't know. I've never cared enough about politics to have a precise definition of what the government's role in society should be, and I can see plenty of valid arguments both for and against. However, "It's up to individual responsibility" isn't one of them.0 -
The government needs to start treating us like adults not wayward children. Those who don't care will over consume and become obese, that is their choice and it should be. Those of us who want to be healthier will work at it without government interference.
Having said that, I believe that those involved in high-risk behavior, i.e., obesity, smoking, excessive alcohol intake, etc., should either have to pay for healthcare expenses directly related to the activity, or the health insurance companies should be allow to charge more to insure them.
Instead of the government "regulating" anything, what about incentives? Tax breaks for those of us who lose weight (or exercise), stop smoking, etc. It would all be voluntary but I'm not sure how it would work. Subsidized Nutrisystem or Jenny Craig? We keep our grocery receipts and the government reimburses us a percentage of fruits and veggies and "healthy foods" on our taxes? We do a weigh-in, then are refunded a certain amount of money for every pound lost? Cholesterol checks? Alcoholics and recreational drug users would have to take periodic blood or urine tests. For smokers, I guess yearly chest X-rays?
:huh:
The first half of your post talks about how the government should get out of personal health entirely.
The second half of your post is a list of ways the government should get heavily involved in personal health.
Nope. What I said was, if the government is going to get involved, instead of forcing behavior, it can incentivize behavior but everyone participating would do so VOLUNTARILY rather than being FORCED (as in the case of regulations). I0 -
The government needs to start treating us like adults not wayward children. Those who don't care will over consume and become obese, that is their choice and it should be. Those of us who want to be healthier will work at it without government interference.
Having said that, I believe that those involved in high-risk behavior, i.e., obesity, smoking, excessive alcohol intake, etc., should either have to pay for healthcare expenses directly related to the activity, or the health insurance companies should be allow to charge more to insure them.
Instead of the government "regulating" anything, what about incentives? Tax breaks for those of us who lose weight (or exercise), stop smoking, etc. It would all be voluntary but I'm not sure how it would work. Subsidized Nutrisystem or Jenny Craig? We keep our grocery receipts and the government reimburses us a percentage of fruits and veggies and "healthy foods" on our taxes? We do a weigh-in, then are refunded a certain amount of money for every pound lost? Cholesterol checks? Alcoholics and recreational drug users would have to take periodic blood or urine tests. For smokers, I guess yearly chest X-rays?
:huh:
The first half of your post talks about how the government should get out of personal health entirely.
The second half of your post is a list of ways the government should get heavily involved in personal health.
Nope. What I said was, if the government is going to get involved, instead of forcing behavior, it can incentivize behavior but everyone participating would do so VOLUNTARILY rather than being FORCED (as in the case of regulations). I
Right right. Government cholesterol checks, blood and urine tests. That sounds like "no government interference" to me.0 -
The government needs to start treating us like adults not wayward children. Those who don't care will over consume and become obese, that is their choice and it should be. Those of us who want to be healthier will work at it without government interference.
Having said that, I believe that those involved in high-risk behavior, i.e., obesity, smoking, excessive alcohol intake, etc., should either have to pay for healthcare expenses directly related to the activity, or the health insurance companies should be allow to charge more to insure them.
Instead of the government "regulating" anything, what about incentives? Tax breaks for those of us who lose weight (or exercise), stop smoking, etc. It would all be voluntary but I'm not sure how it would work. Subsidized Nutrisystem or Jenny Craig? We keep our grocery receipts and the government reimburses us a percentage of fruits and veggies and "healthy foods" on our taxes? We do a weigh-in, then are refunded a certain amount of money for every pound lost? Cholesterol checks? Alcoholics and recreational drug users would have to take periodic blood or urine tests. For smokers, I guess yearly chest X-rays?
:huh:
The first half of your post talks about how the government should get out of personal health entirely.
The second half of your post is a list of ways the government should get heavily involved in personal health.
NOPE. What I said was, if the government feels the need to get involved in our eating habits, it can incentivize them rather than regulate them. Any incentive program would be voluntary, whereas regulations are forced. I know we all hate trans fats but I was against any regulations banning them. Encouraging restaurants and food manufacturers to report them, yes. That way, I can look at the label, menu, or whatever and decide whether or not to order that item or even eat in that restaurant. I rarely if ever go to restaurants (fast food or otherwise) anymore if they do not post nutritional information. That's how I encourage them so to do.
If the government wants to give me back more of my own money because I make a good health choice, I might participate or I might not, that's my choice. If the government regulates what I eat, when I eat and how much I eat, I no longer have a choice. That's the difference.0 -
Actually, the United States is based on individual responsibility. Do as you will, as long as you don't violate anyone else's rights to do as they will. The question is where to draw the line in this case. Obesity costs money. That takes money out of my pocket. That interferes with my right to do as I will because I'm out money I'd otherwise have to save or spend on my family. So I agree that something should be done about obesity. However, I fully believe in every individual's right to eat whatever foods they want to eat.
Maybe I should give a somewhat less flippant answer.
I think they're in Avalon. I know Self Control crashed on Fae Vivian's couch for awhile.
They're apparently gone. Now what?
Bingo.What happened to individual responsibility and self control?
Should people be responsible for their diets? Absolutely. Should people refrain from committing crimes? Again, absolutely... but any government which would base its policy towards crime on moral platitudes would be irresponsible.
Does this mean governments should try to regulate their citizen's diet to a certain extent? I don't know. I've never cared enough about politics to have a precise definition of what the government's role in society should be, and I can see plenty of valid arguments both for and against. However, "It's up to individual responsibility" isn't one of them.
I feel the answer is not in regulation of the food supply, but in better education in food and nutrition. How many grown adults do you see on this board every day come on and ask what a carbohydrate is? Or protein? People aren't being taught the very basics of nutrition, and with the decrease in overall physical activity due to advances in technology, that needs to change; as we need to be more aware of what and how much we eat.0 -
The government needs to start treating us like adults not wayward children. Those who don't care will over consume and become obese, that is their choice and it should be. Those of us who want to be healthier will work at it without government interference.
Having said that, I believe that those involved in high-risk behavior, i.e., obesity, smoking, excessive alcohol intake, etc., should either have to pay for healthcare expenses directly related to the activity, or the health insurance companies should be allow to charge more to insure them.
Instead of the government "regulating" anything, what about incentives? Tax breaks for those of us who lose weight (or exercise), stop smoking, etc. It would all be voluntary but I'm not sure how it would work. Subsidized Nutrisystem or Jenny Craig? We keep our grocery receipts and the government reimburses us a percentage of fruits and veggies and "healthy foods" on our taxes? We do a weigh-in, then are refunded a certain amount of money for every pound lost? Cholesterol checks? Alcoholics and recreational drug users would have to take periodic blood or urine tests. For smokers, I guess yearly chest X-rays?
:huh:
The first half of your post talks about how the government should get out of personal health entirely.
The second half of your post is a list of ways the government should get heavily involved in personal health.
NOPE. What I said was, if the government feels the need to get involved in our eating habits, it can incentivize them rather than regulate them. Any incentive program would be voluntary, whereas regulations are forced. I know we all hate trans fats but I was against any regulations banning them. Encouraging restaurants and food manufacturers to report them, yes. That way, I can look at the label, menu, or whatever and decide whether or not to order that item or even eat in that restaurant. I rarely if ever go to restaurants (fast food or otherwise) anymore if they do not post nutritional information. That's how I encourage them so to do.
If the government wants to give me back more of my own money because I make a good health choice, I might participate or I might not, that's my choice. If the government regulates what I eat, when I eat and how much I eat, I no longer have a choice. That's the difference.
That's not what you said at all.
This is what you said: "Instead of the government "regulating" anything, what about incentives?" Then you listed about having the government monitor cholesterol levels, keep records on how many fruits and vegetables we eat, and have certain subgroups get their blood and urine tested and monitored by.. the government.
To the best of my knowledge, the federal government doesn't have any records of my cholesterol levels, vegetable intake, or urine samples. I can't imagine the bureaucracy that would be created to perform that function and keep that data.
Think about what you're proposing before you propose it.0 -
Is THIS still going on?
You guys want me to go all Keanu up in here?
I mean geez the TITLE itself says GOVERNMENT and WHO right on it. HOW is this not considered political? You guys must all be super well behaved in here for it to still be up. That or Darkon's busy.0 -
The government needs to start treating us like adults not wayward children. Those who don't care will over consume and become obese, that is their choice and it should be. Those of us who want to be healthier will work at it without government interference.
Having said that, I believe that those involved in high-risk behavior, i.e., obesity, smoking, excessive alcohol intake, etc., should either have to pay for healthcare expenses directly related to the activity, or the health insurance companies should be allow to charge more to insure them.
Instead of the government "regulating" anything, what about incentives? Tax breaks for those of us who lose weight (or exercise), stop smoking, etc. It would all be voluntary but I'm not sure how it would work. Subsidized Nutrisystem or Jenny Craig? We keep our grocery receipts and the government reimburses us a percentage of fruits and veggies and "healthy foods" on our taxes? We do a weigh-in, then are refunded a certain amount of money for every pound lost? Cholesterol checks? Alcoholics and recreational drug users would have to take periodic blood or urine tests. For smokers, I guess yearly chest X-rays?
:huh:
The first half of your post talks about how the government should get out of personal health entirely.
The second half of your post is a list of ways the government should get heavily involved in personal health.
Nope. What I said was, if the government is going to get involved, instead of forcing behavior, it can incentivize behavior but everyone participating would do so VOLUNTARILY rather than being FORCED (as in the case of regulations). I
Right right. Government cholesterol checks, blood and urine tests. That sounds like "no government interference" to me.
I did say that I'm not sure how to implement the incentives. I also said they were voluntary. If you don't want to participate - DON'T. If you believe that weight checks and physicals, etc. are too invasive - DON'T DO THEM!! That's what it come down to. Choice. I don't know how much simpler I can relate that concept. I actually think you are being obtuse on purpose at this point.
Having said that, I don't believe the government should be involved at all but if it is going to be involved - and I am resigned to the idea that it will be - this is the least invasive.
And if you're going to argue with that, let me remind you: seat belts, trans fat bans, unleaded gas, air bags, smoking areas, V chips, FCC regulations regarding language/images on TV, cigarette warnings on TV and cigarette packs, marijuana regulations, building code regulations, all designed for "our own good." (Some I agree with, some I don't, btw)0 -
The government needs to start treating us like adults not wayward children. Those who don't care will over consume and become obese, that is their choice and it should be. Those of us who want to be healthier will work at it without government interference.
Having said that, I believe that those involved in high-risk behavior, i.e., obesity, smoking, excessive alcohol intake, etc., should either have to pay for healthcare expenses directly related to the activity, or the health insurance companies should be allow to charge more to insure them.
Instead of the government "regulating" anything, what about incentives? Tax breaks for those of us who lose weight (or exercise), stop smoking, etc. It would all be voluntary but I'm not sure how it would work. Subsidized Nutrisystem or Jenny Craig? We keep our grocery receipts and the government reimburses us a percentage of fruits and veggies and "healthy foods" on our taxes? We do a weigh-in, then are refunded a certain amount of money for every pound lost? Cholesterol checks? Alcoholics and recreational drug users would have to take periodic blood or urine tests. For smokers, I guess yearly chest X-rays?
:huh:
The first half of your post talks about how the government should get out of personal health entirely.
The second half of your post is a list of ways the government should get heavily involved in personal health.
Nope. What I said was, if the government is going to get involved, instead of forcing behavior, it can incentivize behavior but everyone participating would do so VOLUNTARILY rather than being FORCED (as in the case of regulations). I
Right right. Government cholesterol checks, blood and urine tests. That sounds like "no government interference" to me.
I did say that I'm not sure how to implement the incentives. I also said they were voluntary. If you don't want to participate - DON'T. If you believe that weight checks and physicals, etc. are too invasive - DON'T DO THEM!! That's what it come down to. Choice. I don't know how much simpler I can relate that concept. I actually think you are being obtuse on purpose at this point.
Having said that, I don't believe the government should be involved at all but if it is going to be involved - and I am resigned to the idea that it will be - this is the least invasive.
And if you're going to argue with that, let me remind you: seat belts, trans fat bans, unleaded gas, air bags, smoking areas, V chips, FCC regulations regarding language/images on TV, cigarette warnings on TV and cigarette packs, marijuana regulations, building code regulations, all designed for "our own good." (Some I agree with, some I don't, btw)
So you're against increased government involvement in personal health... but you are proposing a new large-scale federal government program to implement voluntary monitoring and logging of personal health markers like vegetable intake, cholesterol levels, blood samples, and urine samples.0 -
^THIS!! Control your damn self! NOT THE GOVERNMENT!What happened to individual responsibility and self control?0 -
Governments should *absolutely* step in. Big food corporations are destroying our health and they tactics they use are insidious.
If I were in a position to change anything I would ban food advertising.
That's it.
No more tv commercials, no more endless billboards - no nothing.
Then after a year I'd reassess and see if anything more needed to be done. But I doubt if it would.0 -
Governments should *absolutely* step in. Big food corporations are destroying our health and they tactics they use are insidious.
If I were in a position to change anything I would ban food advertising.
That's it.
No more tv commercials, no more endless billboards - no nothing.
Then after a year I'd reassess and see if anything more needed to be done. But I doubt if it would.
Not allowed to advertise food? Like... at all?0 -
The foundations of fascism.0
-
The foundations of fascism.
You just can't argue with a statist who "knows better."0 -
'
Bingo.What happened to individual responsibility and self control?
They're apparently gone. Now what?
1984. Big Brother is coming.
Please tell me you're joking.
To some extent. In reality, not so much. There's a fine line between people who want to take personal responsibility for their own healthcare, finances, nutrition, etc, etc, and it's been pretty blurred recently. There are an awful lot of people who'd rather just sit on the couch and watch Honey Boo-Boo and Duck Dynasty and complain about when the government is coming for their guns than get off their *kitten* and take some initiative and learn about how to manage money and nutrition and parenting.
Government regulations are not the answer. Big Brother doesn't need to watch us all and tell us how much salt and soda and red meat we can eat, but if people don't take some initiative, and educate themselves and their children about how to do these things properly for themselves, that is the direction our country is headed. All you have to do to see it is look at insurance regulations. There's a big difference in pay levels for smokers vs. non smokers and fee breaks for people who log exercise, and it's already started based on BMI and blood serum cholesterol.0 -
'
Bingo.What happened to individual responsibility and self control?
They're apparently gone. Now what?
1984. Big Brother is coming.
Please tell me you're joking.
To some extent. In reality, not so much. There's a fine line between people who want to take personal responsibility for their own healthcare, finances, nutrition, etc, etc, and it's been pretty blurred recently. There are an awful lot of people who'd rather just sit on the couch and watch Honey Boo-Boo and Duck Dynasty and complain about when the government is coming for their guns than get off their *kitten* and take some initiative and learn about how to manage money and nutrition and parenting.
Government regulations are not the answer. Big Brother doesn't need to watch us all and tell us how much salt and soda and red meat we can eat, but if people don't take some initiative, and educate themselves and their children about how to do these things properly for themselves, that is the direction our country is headed. All you have to do to see it is look at insurance regulations. There's a big difference in pay levels for smokers vs. non smokers and fee breaks for people who log exercise, and it's already started based on BMI and blood serum cholesterol.
Unfortunately, most people lack the ability/education to control themselves and make sensible choices and these anchors have the potential to drag everyone down. The simple truth is that someone needs to tell those people what to do and I would rather it be big government than big business.0 -
'
Bingo.What happened to individual responsibility and self control?
They're apparently gone. Now what?
1984. Big Brother is coming.
Please tell me you're joking.
To some extent. In reality, not so much. There's a fine line between people who want to take personal responsibility for their own healthcare, finances, nutrition, etc, etc, and it's been pretty blurred recently. There are an awful lot of people who'd rather just sit on the couch and watch Honey Boo-Boo and Duck Dynasty and complain about when the government is coming for their guns than get off their *kitten* and take some initiative and learn about how to manage money and nutrition and parenting.
Government regulations are not the answer. Big Brother doesn't need to watch us all and tell us how much salt and soda and red meat we can eat, but if people don't take some initiative, and educate themselves and their children about how to do these things properly for themselves, that is the direction our country is headed. All you have to do to see it is look at insurance regulations. There's a big difference in pay levels for smokers vs. non smokers and fee breaks for people who log exercise, and it's already started based on BMI and blood serum cholesterol.
Unfortunately, most people lack the ability/education to control themselves and make sensible choices and these anchors have the potential to drag everyone down. The simple truth is that someone needs to tell those people what to do and I would rather it be big government than big business.
That kind of copout pisses me off. Everyone has the ability to control themselves and make sensible choices. If the reverse were true, we'd never lock anyone up for committing crimes, we'd just say "he couldn't help it, he couldn't control himself". Please. We have the gift of higher reasoning. It's called making a choice for a reason.0 -
No but the food Industry has to be truthful and knowledge is power so let us know what is in what we eat. Regulate truth in ingredients yes, not hide fact. I want to know what is genetically modified. I want to know how animals are treated or mistreated in my food consumption. Government should banish animal factory farms that use animals and fur as commodities only. Look at the Chipotle Video. I am sick and tired or Government Subsidies for Corn. No government regulation but farmers want government money. Just give me the opportunity to know what I eat and the availability more prevalent of non toxic fattening, salty, sugary crap.
Watching IHOP commercials I almost throw up. Those are not pancakes they are pastries. I was so grossed out by those KFC bowls when they first came out. Yuk to Olive Garden, I ate once and was horrified at the 'meat'? I very rarely eat at fast food chains and prefer local diners. And why eat chain Pizza and TGIF etc when real local eateries exist? If you think Taco Bell is Mexican food you are a la la land.0 -
That kind of copout pisses me off. Everyone has the ability to control themselves and make sensible choices. If the reverse were true, we'd never lock anyone up for committing crimes, we'd just say "he couldn't help it, he couldn't control himself". Please. We have the gift of higher reasoning. It's called making a choice for a reason.
Then why do people not control themselves? And what do we do about the fact that they don't?0 -
Exactly.That kind of copout pisses me off. Everyone has the ability to control themselves and make sensible choices. If the reverse were true, we'd never lock anyone up for committing crimes, we'd just say "he couldn't help it, he couldn't control himself". Please. We have the gift of higher reasoning. It's called making a choice for a reason.
Then why do people not control themselves? And what do we do about the fact that they don't?0 -
'
Bingo.What happened to individual responsibility and self control?
They're apparently gone. Now what?
1984. Big Brother is coming.
Please tell me you're joking.
To some extent. In reality, not so much. There's a fine line between people who want to take personal responsibility for their own healthcare, finances, nutrition, etc, etc, and it's been pretty blurred recently. There are an awful lot of people who'd rather just sit on the couch and watch Honey Boo-Boo and Duck Dynasty and complain about when the government is coming for their guns than get off their *kitten* and take some initiative and learn about how to manage money and nutrition and parenting.
Government regulations are not the answer. Big Brother doesn't need to watch us all and tell us how much salt and soda and red meat we can eat, but if people don't take some initiative, and educate themselves and their children about how to do these things properly for themselves, that is the direction our country is headed. All you have to do to see it is look at insurance regulations. There's a big difference in pay levels for smokers vs. non smokers and fee breaks for people who log exercise, and it's already started based on BMI and blood serum cholesterol.
Unfortunately, most people lack the ability/education to control themselves and make sensible choices and these anchors have the potential to drag everyone down. The simple truth is that someone needs to tell those people what to do and I would rather it be big government than big business.
That kind of copout pisses me off. Everyone has the ability to control themselves and make sensible choices. If the reverse were true, we'd never lock anyone up for committing crimes, we'd just say "he couldn't help it, he couldn't control himself". Please. We have the gift of higher reasoning. It's called making a choice for a reason.
People make terrible choices and sometimes need to be protected from themselves. Leaving people to their own devices is sometimes the worst of all options.0 -
'
Bingo.What happened to individual responsibility and self control?
They're apparently gone. Now what?
1984. Big Brother is coming.
Please tell me you're joking.
To some extent. In reality, not so much. There's a fine line between people who want to take personal responsibility for their own healthcare, finances, nutrition, etc, etc, and it's been pretty blurred recently. There are an awful lot of people who'd rather just sit on the couch and watch Honey Boo-Boo and Duck Dynasty and complain about when the government is coming for their guns than get off their *kitten* and take some initiative and learn about how to manage money and nutrition and parenting.
Government regulations are not the answer. Big Brother doesn't need to watch us all and tell us how much salt and soda and red meat we can eat, but if people don't take some initiative, and educate themselves and their children about how to do these things properly for themselves, that is the direction our country is headed. All you have to do to see it is look at insurance regulations. There's a big difference in pay levels for smokers vs. non smokers and fee breaks for people who log exercise, and it's already started based on BMI and blood serum cholesterol.
Unfortunately, most people lack the ability/education to control themselves and make sensible choices and these anchors have the potential to drag everyone down. The simple truth is that someone needs to tell those people what to do and I would rather it be big government than big business.
That kind of copout pisses me off. Everyone has the ability to control themselves and make sensible choices. If the reverse were true, we'd never lock anyone up for committing crimes, we'd just say "he couldn't help it, he couldn't control himself". Please. We have the gift of higher reasoning. It's called making a choice for a reason.
People make terrible choices and sometimes need to be protected from themselves. Leaving people to their own devices is sometimes the worst of all options.
that's called survival of the fittest.0 -
'
Bingo.What happened to individual responsibility and self control?
They're apparently gone. Now what?
1984. Big Brother is coming.
Please tell me you're joking.
To some extent. In reality, not so much. There's a fine line between people who want to take personal responsibility for their own healthcare, finances, nutrition, etc, etc, and it's been pretty blurred recently. There are an awful lot of people who'd rather just sit on the couch and watch Honey Boo-Boo and Duck Dynasty and complain about when the government is coming for their guns than get off their *kitten* and take some initiative and learn about how to manage money and nutrition and parenting.
Government regulations are not the answer. Big Brother doesn't need to watch us all and tell us how much salt and soda and red meat we can eat, but if people don't take some initiative, and educate themselves and their children about how to do these things properly for themselves, that is the direction our country is headed. All you have to do to see it is look at insurance regulations. There's a big difference in pay levels for smokers vs. non smokers and fee breaks for people who log exercise, and it's already started based on BMI and blood serum cholesterol.
Unfortunately, most people lack the ability/education to control themselves and make sensible choices and these anchors have the potential to drag everyone down. The simple truth is that someone needs to tell those people what to do and I would rather it be big government than big business.
That kind of copout pisses me off. Everyone has the ability to control themselves and make sensible choices. If the reverse were true, we'd never lock anyone up for committing crimes, we'd just say "he couldn't help it, he couldn't control himself". Please. We have the gift of higher reasoning. It's called making a choice for a reason.
People make terrible choices and sometimes need to be protected from themselves. Leaving people to their own devices is sometimes the worst of all options.
that's called survival of the fittest.
That's fine for animals in the field but humans have "the gift of higher reasoning" so pure natural selection doesn't apply. Thus the need for some kind of oversight.0 -
that's called survival of the fittest.
Except that makes zero sense in the context of a modern first-world society where the poor and obese reproduce at rates significantly higher than the rich and fit.0 -
that's called survival of the fittest.
Except that makes zero sense in the context of a modern first-world society where the poor and obese reproduce at rates significantly higher than the rich and fit.
Well, that's government-supported, because the majority of those people are the ones who are votiing for them. If you keep them uneducated and unhealthy, they'll do pretty much whatever you tell them to do.0 -
that's called survival of the fittest.
Except that makes zero sense in the context of a modern first-world society where the poor and obese reproduce at rates significantly higher than the rich and fit.
Well, that's government-supported, because the majority of those people are the ones who are votiing for them. If you keep them uneducated and unhealthy, they'll do pretty much whatever you tell them to do.
So the "fittest" in the context of our society are actually the uneducated and unhealthy.
So what do we do?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions