Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Thoughts on the “glamourizing/normalizing” obesity vs body positivity conversations

11617182022

Replies

  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,756 Member
    Tell me how you think that prohibition did work?
  • qhob_89
    qhob_89 Posts: 105 Member
    Tell me how you think that prohibition did work?

    If this is my question... I was agreeing with you. I don’t think it did work... hellooo, moonshine! Just as there was a black market during WWII rationing.
    If this is directed at those who hit the disagree button... I too await their response...
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,756 Member
    Al Capone was a real peach but then peaches would be rationed.
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,756 Member
    qhob_89 wrote: »
    Tell me how you think that prohibition did work?

    If this is my question... I was agreeing with you. I don’t think it did work... hellooo, moonshine! Just as there was a black market during WWII rationing.
    If this is directed at those who hit the disagree button... I too await their response...

    We are on the same page❤️
  • siberiantarragon
    siberiantarragon Posts: 136 Member
    Tell me how you think that prohibition did work?

    It actually did, in a way. Read the book "Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition" by Daniel Okrent (it is a great book!) The US used to have a serious, serious alcohol problem. The temperance movement didn't just come out of nowhere -- it was a response to out-of-control alcohol use issues in US society. While the temperance movement didn't stop alcoholism or alcohol use entirely, it did help with the problematic drinking culture that had taken root in the US, and alcohol use levels have never since reached the levels where they were at in the 1800s. It also popularized the concept of "alcoholism" and the idea of treatment for alcohol use disorder.
  • siberiantarragon
    siberiantarragon Posts: 136 Member
    For one, the goal was never to require certain people to consume fewer calories. In fact, people were ENCOURAGED to do things like plant gardens to ensure they had sufficient food to eat.

    Calorie-dense items and addictive processed foods weren't being grown in those gardens. It was mostly fruits and vegetables.
    The rationed items weren't chosen because the government decided that we should eat less of them, it was about preserving resources for the war effort or the literal limited availability of certain foods.

    They WERE chosen because the government decided that we should eat less of them. They just wanted people to eat less of them for a different reason than preventing obesity. This would be about preserving life for the anti-COVID/anti-dying of preventable causes in general effort. I don't see how the difference in aims makes it unworkable.
    The idea that I need permission from the government to put a teaspoon of sugar in my coffee . . . I just don't see that going over.

    Yet the idea that we need permission from the government to have Thanksgiving dinner with relatives, go to a friend's house, or even GO OUTSIDE FOR A WALK is perfectly fine?
  • siberiantarragon
    siberiantarragon Posts: 136 Member
    edited January 2021
    That is a great book, although Okrent disagrees with you that Prohibition could be said to have worked.

    From an interview: "I don't see how anyone can successfully argue that it was worth it, because the other consequences were so severe."

    https://www.vox.com/2015/10/19/9566935/prohibition-myths-misconceptions-facts

    While we may not be drinking at the levels we were in the 1800s, we have had national periods where we were drinking at pre-Prohibition levels so I'm not sure how you can conclude that it "worked."

    The temperance movement did have an effect on alcohol consumption levels, though. Alcohol consumption levels had already fallen significantly by the 1920s, as a result of the temperance movement. Perhaps it was a victim of its own success, in a way.

    Also note that this article ALSO says: "But one thing many don't know is that Prohibition did, in fact, reduce alcohol consumption: As Okrent told me, tax stamps from before and after Prohibition's passage suggest there was, indeed, a decline in drinking — one that was sustained for several years. "

    The problem was it also caused other secondary effects such as an increase in crime, but, hey, nobody cared about secondary effects when it came to lockdown because "if it saves just one life," right? (Says the person who had to move due to a lockdown-induced crime spike in the area in which I used to live.)

    Also, Prohibition involved banning alcohol entirely. Whereas this rationing plan wouldn't involve banning junk food entirely, just limiting it. I think that's an important distinction. Moderation and prohibition are two very different things. I'm not even sure why people are comparing the two, really, as it's a totally false comparison.

  • siberiantarragon
    siberiantarragon Posts: 136 Member
    edited January 2021
    People were specifically encouraged to grow potatoes due to their relative calorie density. Yeah, they grew fruits and vegetables -- what ELSE are you going to grow in a backyard garden? The goal of food rationing was never, for a moment, designed to limit the number of calories in the American diet. You're talking about taking a limited duration ban designed exclusively to preserve resources for the war effort and using it as a template to force weight loss on the population.

    I really doubt people are going to get obese off of backyard-grown potatoes and I also don't see how this has anything to do with the discussion. I also really doubt people are going to starve to death if they're only allowed to buy a limited number of desserts and fast-food meals per week.
    I am not sure what area you are referencing when people cannot walk outside. Even in California, where restrictions are pretty tight, there is a specific exemption for people walking or hiking outside. There may be areas in the US right now where people are not allowed to walk outside, but that would not be the norm. To use that to make the case that the federal government should artificially restrict my access to white flour seems like an overreaction.

    Restrictions on outdoor exercise up to and including outright bans have occurred in the UK, Australia, France, Italy, Spain, China, and probably some other places I'm missing. Sure, they're not in the US, but they still count as places, right? (And many people say we should have followed their example.) In my area they also closed all the parks for a couple of months, which effectively banned outdoor exercise for anyone who doesn't live in a walkable neighborhood. They also banned driving unless you're going to the store or somewhere else "essential," so, no driving to a more walkable neighborhood either. They reversed those restrictions for now, but if it happened once, it can happen again.

  • siberiantarragon
    siberiantarragon Posts: 136 Member
    That alcohol consumption levels dropped due to the Temperance movement's pre-Prohibition efforts to persuade people to voluntarily limit their drinking is not a reason to conclude that Prohibition itself worked. I do note that the article itself notes that the decline was sustained for "several years." It caught my attention because of your claim that we never returned to 1800s level drinking levels and I realized what you were trying to do there -- make it seem like Prohibition itself had permanently caused the drinking level to decline. It didn't. And Prohibition itself had terrible consequences. I know you WANT it to have worked because it fits nicely with what you want to do to my pantry. That doesn't mean it DID work.

    We didn't return to 1800s level drinking levels, as a result of the temperance movement. Prohibition came after the drinking levels had already significantly dropped from their peak in the 1830s...as a result of the temperance movement. Drinking levels reduced DURING Prohibition, and then went back up several years after it ended...because there was no more Prohibition. So, at the time the policy existed, it did reduce drinking levels. And drinking levels also reduced in the decades beforehand due to the actions of the people who supported the policy.

    So you think we should have an analogue of the temperance movement instead of outright rationing to reduce obesity? I mean, I'm just wondering, I'm literally the only person coming up with solutions here and you're all trashing me, but do you have any better ideas? Or do you want the obesity levels to keep going up until we're at 100% obesity? What is your great idea for solving the problem?

    (Let's ignore the fact that the entire food-rationing thing started as a criticism of lockdowns in the first place and wasn't even meant to be serious!)
    Also, Prohibition didn't entirely ban alcohol. It was allowed for medicinal and sacramental use. I think Okrent even discusses this in his book. In fact, you could even HAVE alcohol, there were just restrictions on the sale, production, and transport. It is more similar to what you're proposing than you seem to realize.

    That's kind of the difference between Zoom Thanksgiving and actual Thanksgiving, isn't it?

    The concept of junk-food speakeasies is pretty amusing though. Wasn't that an episode of The Simpsons?