The men who made us fat

I didn't read those questions as anything more than rhetorical. Besides, pcastgner's large number of posts on public policy, fascism, communism, etc. made very sure this thread wasn't about answering those questions. I guess that's how "discussions" work though.

I didn't read those questions as anything more than rhetorical. Besides, pcastgner's large number of posts on public policy, fascism, communism, etc. made very sure this thread wasn't about answering those questions. I guess that's how "discussions" work though.

Pcast's entry was brought on by a polarizing post not addressing the questions posed by the OP. Pretty direct path and easy to see.

However, there's only one thing worth discussing in any depth with these topics - and that's social policy. Personal responsibility is extremely easy and obvious. It's what we all do - it's the point of this app/website. Duh, read labels. Duh, put calories into machine. Hurp durp. Presenting it as an opposing viewpoint is bizarre, as Pcast has repeatedly mentioned, because the entire community here is on board with taking control of our intake.

I'm trying to understand how your two options are exclusive?

Are you really? You answered this yourself on Page 2 or 3.

Yeah, but beach iron seems particularly astute so asking him to clarify makes sense. Is that ok with you, repetition police?

Hehe, adding the edit drew me back! You're right there are two simultaneous arguments going on that don't have to be in opposition. Your 8 pages of effort, valiant though it has been, hasn't made a dent in this dynamic. It seems a little goofy to pretend to continue to strive for understanding. But obviously you don't need my approval to carry on

I'm honestly baffled as to any point in this thread. Seriously. Is there a solution for anyone on MFP in all of this? And I mean specifically.

We can talk public policy until we're all blue in the face, and rather smug with our nobel intentions, but it won't make a bit of difference to anyone here. It also ends up confusing things for individuals because it draws attention away from what they can control (their own behavior) and onto something that they cannot (public policy).

Would the U.S. be a thinner nation if we completely did away with fast food and chinese and pizza delivery? I think its possible if not probable.

Is that going to happen? No.

Do I want it to happen? No.

Can I live in a society with fast food, and chinese and pizza delivery and still be in great shape? Of course. Heck, I can even eat it regularly if I want it, and I do.

I choose to focus on what I have control over, and pretty much the only things that I have control over are my own behavior and my own attitude.

Therefore, I read labels, I count calories, I balance my macros, I exercise, and I point out to others that they can do the same. It's not particularly ambitious in terms of recreating society, I realize, but it does work.

So... If it doesn't transform you, personally and completely, it doesn't matter?


Seems like there are two subjects worth discussing, one addressing the individual, and the other addressing groups. Banning Chinese food and pizza? That would be stupid. But what about not letting interested parties like cargill effectively write the farm bill?


Nope, public policy is not going to help you transform your body. But it IS going to indirectly affect your quality of life unless you live in isolation.

Again, do you have a point? Something specific? A proposal?

What specifically about farm bill do you want to change? Legislation is often quite complicated and it is the result of many interest groups with conflicting agendas finding a compromise. It is never pretty. I certainly have objections to U.S. farm policy.

I do I do!

Start with requiring any legislator involved to divest him or herself of any investments that could be affected by how the rules are written.

Follow that up with taking a fresh look at where ag subsidies go, with a preference for spec crops while still ensuring enough staples to secure the food supply.

Use public investment to address food deserts, using statistical evidence to find them.

Investing heavily in research aimed at learning how populations respond to various practices to see what works and what doesn't (counterweight to all the research going into finding ways to trigger overeating)



That's a start.

Wait. Didn't you say earlier that this thread was only about those two questions in the OP?

But now there's something more you want to discuss, social policy, and since that interests you that is legitimate?

The questions were rhetorical devices to elicit a debate on social policy. The debate started and the ad hominems and straw man arguments ensued.

And now you appear to be angry.

And frankly, I still haven't seen any cogent arguments as to what to do with social policy. I have seen a number of additional rhetorical questions though.

I'm trying to understand how your two options are exclusive?

Are you really? You answered this yourself on Page 2 or 3.

Yeah, but beach iron seems particularly astute so asking him to clarify makes sense. Is that ok with you, repetition police?

Hehe, adding the edit drew me back! You're right there are two simultaneous arguments going on that don't have to be in opposition. Your 8 pages of effort, valiant though it has been, hasn't made a dent in this dynamic. It seems a little goofy to pretend to continue to strive for understanding. But obviously you don't need my approval to carry on

I'm honestly baffled as to any point in this thread. Seriously. Is there a solution for anyone on MFP in all of this? And I mean specifically.

We can talk public policy until we're all blue in the face, and rather smug with our nobel intentions, but it won't make a bit of difference to anyone here. It also ends up confusing things for individuals because it draws attention away from what they can control (their own behavior) and onto something that they cannot (public policy).

Would the U.S. be a thinner nation if we completely did away with fast food and chinese and pizza delivery? I think its possible if not probable.

Is that going to happen? No.

Do I want it to happen? No.

Can I live in a society with fast food, and chinese and pizza delivery and still be in great shape? Of course. Heck, I can even eat it regularly if I want it, and I do.

I choose to focus on what I have control over, and pretty much the only things that I have control over are my own behavior and my own attitude.

Therefore, I read labels, I count calories, I balance my macros, I exercise, and I point out to others that they can do the same. It's not particularly ambitious in terms of recreating society, I realize, but it does work.

So... If it doesn't transform you, personally and completely, it doesn't matter?


Seems like there are two subjects worth discussing, one addressing the individual, and the other addressing groups. Banning Chinese food and pizza? That would be stupid. But what about not letting interested parties like cargill effectively write the farm bill?


Nope, public policy is not going to help you transform your body. But it IS going to indirectly affect your quality of life unless you live in isolation.

Again, do you have a point? Something specific? A proposal?

What specifically about farm bill do you want to change? Legislation is often quite complicated and it is the result of many interest groups with conflicting agendas finding a compromise. It is never pretty. I certainly have objections to U.S. farm policy.

I do I do!

Start with requiring any legislator involved to divest him or herself of any investments that could be affected by how the rules are written.

Follow that up with taking a fresh look at where ag subsidies go, with a preference for spec crops while still ensuring enough staples to secure the food supply.

Use public investment to address food deserts, using statistical evidence to find them.

Investing heavily in research aimed at learning how populations respond to various practices to see what works and what doesn't (counterweight to all the research going into finding ways to trigger overeating)



That's a start.

Okay.

Some questions.

How would you define "investments that could be affected by how the rules are written?" I mean this in all seriousness as if you are familiar with laws on this point, they can be extremely complex. Would the legislator be allowed to invest in only mutual funds, or example, that invested in a large portfolio of stocks representative of some market index? The S&P 500 as a specific example.

As for the fresh look at subsidies, let's take that look. Which crops are worth subsidizing and which are not? Perhaps, as an alternative, we should do away with subsidies for specific crops altogether, as that is how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place?

There's already a good deal of research on human behavior. Do you have a background in this? My background is in philosophy, business and law, so I'm somewhat limited to those unless I play out of my pay grade, which I do on occasion.

And just as one suggestion of my own, why don't we take what we do know, that eating less and moving more works for the individual, and focus on policies that will better educate the public about this? Perhaps if we tell them that they can change their own lives for the better enough times, they may actually come to believe it? Just my own 2 cents.

We are all amateurs here, no worries about your background or mine.


For divestment, we already do this when it comes to judges ruling on cases. Since your background is in law I don't need to explain that. Just extend the same ethic to legislators. And put the burden of proving their investments are not with interested parties on the legislators. I would contend that if legislators were not allowed to personally profit from decisions ostensibly in the public interest, a great many of them would simply quit and make room for people actually interested in the public good.



I see you added education to the list, which I can agree with, AS AN ADDITION. It's not an alternative and we aren't faced with the dilemma of choosing one or the other.


I see you really, really want groups to functions in ways that are predicted by your perception of individual behavior, but this is neither rational nor evident. It just doesn't happen. Further, I would contend that most humans have a pretty skewed view of just how rational they are, achieved by forgetting all the irrational things we do while constructing a personal narrative that focuses on our individuality. Rational choice theory is very seductive, but there is a slight problem: humans are not rational by nature.

I'm trying to understand how your two options are exclusive?

Are you really? You answered this yourself on Page 2 or 3.

Yeah, but beach iron seems particularly astute so asking him to clarify makes sense. Is that ok with you, repetition police?

Hehe, adding the edit drew me back! You're right there are two simultaneous arguments going on that don't have to be in opposition. Your 8 pages of effort, valiant though it has been, hasn't made a dent in this dynamic. It seems a little goofy to pretend to continue to strive for understanding. But obviously you don't need my approval to carry on

I'm honestly baffled as to any point in this thread. Seriously. Is there a solution for anyone on MFP in all of this? And I mean specifically.

We can talk public policy until we're all blue in the face, and rather smug with our nobel intentions, but it won't make a bit of difference to anyone here. It also ends up confusing things for individuals because it draws attention away from what they can control (their own behavior) and onto something that they cannot (public policy).

Would the U.S. be a thinner nation if we completely did away with fast food and chinese and pizza delivery? I think its possible if not probable.

Is that going to happen? No.

Do I want it to happen? No.

Can I live in a society with fast food, and chinese and pizza delivery and still be in great shape? Of course. Heck, I can even eat it regularly if I want it, and I do.

I choose to focus on what I have control over, and pretty much the only things that I have control over are my own behavior and my own attitude.

Therefore, I read labels, I count calories, I balance my macros, I exercise, and I point out to others that they can do the same. It's not particularly ambitious in terms of recreating society, I realize, but it does work.

So... If it doesn't transform you, personally and completely, it doesn't matter?


Seems like there are two subjects worth discussing, one addressing the individual, and the other addressing groups. Banning Chinese food and pizza? That would be stupid. But what about not letting interested parties like cargill effectively write the farm bill?


Nope, public policy is not going to help you transform your body. But it IS going to indirectly affect your quality of life unless you live in isolation.

Again, do you have a point? Something specific? A proposal?

What specifically about farm bill do you want to change? Legislation is often quite complicated and it is the result of many interest groups with conflicting agendas finding a compromise. It is never pretty. I certainly have objections to U.S. farm policy.

I do I do!

Start with requiring any legislator involved to divest him or herself of any investments that could be affected by how the rules are written.

Follow that up with taking a fresh look at where ag subsidies go, with a preference for spec crops while still ensuring enough staples to secure the food supply.

Use public investment to address food deserts, using statistical evidence to find them.

Investing heavily in research aimed at learning how populations respond to various practices to see what works and what doesn't (counterweight to all the research going into finding ways to trigger overeating)



That's a start.

Okay.

Some questions.

How would you define "investments that could be affected by how the rules are written?" I mean this in all seriousness as if you are familiar with laws on this point, they can be extremely complex. Would the legislator be allowed to invest in only mutual funds, or example, that invested in a large portfolio of stocks representative of some market index? The S&P 500 as a specific example.

As for the fresh look at subsidies, let's take that look. Which crops are worth subsidizing and which are not? Perhaps, as an alternative, we should do away with subsidies for specific crops altogether, as that is how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place?

There's already a good deal of research on human behavior. Do you have a background in this? My background is in philosophy, business and law, so I'm somewhat limited to those unless I play out of my pay grade, which I do on occasion.

And just as one suggestion of my own, why don't we take what we do know, that eating less and moving more works for the individual, and focus on policies that will better educate the public about this? Perhaps if we tell them that they can change their own lives for the better enough times, they may actually come to believe it? Just my own 2 cents.

We are all amateurs here, no worries about your background or mine.


For divestment, we already do this when it comes to judges ruling on cases. Since your background is in law I don't need to explain that. Just extend the same ethic to legislators. And put the burden of proving their investments are not with interested parties on the legislators. I would contend that if legislators were not allowed to personally profit from decisions ostensibly in the public interest, a great many of them would simply quit and make room for people actually interested in the public good.



I see you added education to the list, which I can agree with, AS AN ADDITION. It's not an alternative and we aren't faced with the dilemma of choosing one or the other.


I see you really, really want groups to functions in ways that are predicted by your perception of individual behavior, but this is neither rational nor evident. It just doesn't happen. Further, I would contend that most humans have a pretty skewed view of just how rational they are, achieved by forgetting all the irrational things we do while constructing a personal narrative that focuses on our individuality. Rational choice theory is very seductive, but there is a slight problem: humans are not rational by nature.

May I politely suggest that in the future you save the pages of posts referencing Stalinism, communism, etc. and start with something like this? I don't agree with everything you have written here, and I honestly don't have a personal interest in debating it for the reasons I stated earlier, but it does move the discussion forward. It also gives someone else the opportunity to now enter and debate with you regarding your points.

There are also a couple of debating groups on MFP that provide a better forum for social policy debates. You may find joining one of these helpful as you can wade into controversial issues there without the mods shutting it down.

Best of luck and enjoy!

edit: typo

Please explain to me how the FDA, which is a government agency wholly funded by the Federal Government, gets rich when people get sick? It's not like the FDA gets a cut of the profits from Pharmaceutical manufacturers. In fact, there are laws which specifically prohibit that!

........ And I sure hope that those who are on MFP have realised by now that dieting (like shown in the program you're referring to) doesn't work in the long run ... but the foods we chose to consume will

It's not just the hidden calories in take-outs, the hidden sugar in supermarket produce, but also the hidden agenda in wider society (whether driven by big business, politics, or other more base or basic instincts)