|
On March 07 2012 01:25 liberal wrote:Oh jesus christ, here we go again, get the government involved and punish innocent people under atrocious reasoning... Please people, please realize that there is no "unhealthy food," only unhealthy quantities of consumption of certain food. There is nothing "unhealthy" about sugar, it's fundamental to survival... If I take a few sips of soda, it won't be unhealthy. If I drink a liter in a day, it will be unhealthy.
I personally perceive the problem to be the ridiculous amounts of sugar put into American food products. Walk down any supermarket in the US and check on the ingredients of any products that isn't fruit/veggies/meat/rice. I bet you that you won't find a single brand of bread that has no sugar in it. Same goes for any sauce, microwave food, and pretty much everything that has more than a single ingredient. Why?
Sugar is indeed fundamental to survival, but the quantities of sugar the American public is exposed to is basically criminal.
Nature made sugar hard to get, men made it hard to avoid.
|
On March 07 2012 01:38 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:34 vandelayindustries wrote:On March 07 2012 01:25 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:18 vandelayindustries wrote:
Tax unhealthy food and soda Oh jesus christ, here we go again, get the government involved and punish innocent people under atrocious reasoning... Please people, please realize that there is no "unhealthy food," only unhealthy quantities of consumption of certain food. There is nothing "unhealthy" about sugar, it's fundamental to survival... If I take a few sips of soda, it won't be unhealthy. If I drink a liter in a day, it will be unhealthy. Clearly some degree of regulation is necessary as the American people—on average—have proven they are incapable of taking care of their bodies. The proportion of people who die in this country due to weight-related heart failure or prescription drug is overwhelming, I don't think it's enough anymore to say that people, due to constitutional right to free dominion over their body, should be exempt from criticism or punishment for their unhealthy and anti-social behaviors. If you think over-eating to the point of obesity or poor health is not anti-social behavior but purely self-destructive you are very wrong. Except these taxes don't punish behavior, they simply tax food. There's a clear difference there, which was the point you missed in my post.
You should consider examining the issue from an economic perspective, you may then gain a greater appreciation for what I am saying.
|
On March 07 2012 01:39 vandelayindustries wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:35 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:32 hongo wrote:On March 07 2012 01:22 liberal wrote:
It has nothing to do with "self-control," it's simply that his brain more frequently values the pleasure of eating/relaxing over the desire to be thinner. Your brain has been programmed to judge differently (and your genes/metabolism surely plays a factor as well), it doesn't mean your "self-control" is superior. But that's what self-control is defined as, "self-denial: the act of denying yourself; controlling your impulses." So by your own response, it has everything to do with self-control and denying himself the pleasure of eating pizza and wings 3 times a week. And you can "program" your brain, it's all about developing habits. It's not like he was a baby in the womb who was programmed to love food and love sitting in his char for 10 hours a day, it's a habit he developed. Of course it's hard to break habits and develop new ones, but it's not like it's out of his control. Hmmm.... would you say he can also control his self-control, using... self-control? And so on, ad infinitum? I think I'm beginning to understand this type of thinking. What is your opinion on the question of dualism in philosophy of the mind? Do you believe the brain is the be-all-end-all? Do you believe free will is an actuality or merely a hypothesis? And why? You cannot object to free will without a cogent argument.
If you want to debate free will, there is a thread in general right now for that. I've already expressed my opinion there, so I don't want to derail this thread further.
|
On March 07 2012 01:35 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:32 hongo wrote:On March 07 2012 01:22 liberal wrote:
It has nothing to do with "self-control," it's simply that his brain more frequently values the pleasure of eating/relaxing over the desire to be thinner. Your brain has been programmed to judge differently (and your genes/metabolism surely plays a factor as well), it doesn't mean your "self-control" is superior. But that's what self-control is defined as, "self-denial: the act of denying yourself; controlling your impulses." So by your own response, it has everything to do with self-control and denying himself the pleasure of eating pizza and wings 3 times a week. And you can "program" your brain, it's all about developing habits. It's not like he was a baby in the womb who was programmed to love food and love sitting in his char for 10 hours a day, it's a habit he developed. Of course it's hard to break habits and develop new ones, but it's not like it's out of his control. Hmmm.... would you say he can also control his self-control, using... self-control? And so on, ad infinitum? I think I'm beginning to understand this type of thinking.
That makes no sense at all. How am I introducing any infinite loop of the kind that you do? I am simply saying if someone says "I want to lose weight" they are going to have to change their lifestyle, which required self-control. If you do not have the self-control to deny yourself the pleasures you took before, you will not lose weight.
|
On March 07 2012 01:31 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:22 Nallen wrote:
Why don't many areas in the States have fresh fruit and veg?
My Dad moved from the UK to the US a few years back. He's put on about 60lb (and he's 5'8"). Now he was inactive before, being in his late 50's and is still inactive now. What's changed is the size of the meals and the quality of the food.
He asked us what size T-shirts my brother and I wear for Christmas present buying last year. We told him medium. The shirts we got were fucking huge. All areas in the US have access to fresh fruits and vegetables, except maybe the area inside of a fast food restaurant. I wear medium shirts from the US, and I weigh 130 pounds. They aren't "fucking huge."
All areas apart from inside fast food restaurants and supermarkets, evidently.
I guess the t-shirt thing may well be a simple case of where you buy, a Diesel Medium is not the same as a super-generic Medium. That said, what we received was at least the size of a Large over here (compared them) and not what I'd say fit me at all (160lb).
|
On March 07 2012 01:39 vandelayindustries wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 07 2012 01:35 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:32 hongo wrote:On March 07 2012 01:22 liberal wrote:
It has nothing to do with "self-control," it's simply that his brain more frequently values the pleasure of eating/relaxing over the desire to be thinner. Your brain has been programmed to judge differently (and your genes/metabolism surely plays a factor as well), it doesn't mean your "self-control" is superior. But that's what self-control is defined as, "self-denial: the act of denying yourself; controlling your impulses." So by your own response, it has everything to do with self-control and denying himself the pleasure of eating pizza and wings 3 times a week. And you can "program" your brain, it's all about developing habits. It's not like he was a baby in the womb who was programmed to love food and love sitting in his char for 10 hours a day, it's a habit he developed. Of course it's hard to break habits and develop new ones, but it's not like it's out of his control. Hmmm.... would you say he can also control his self-control, using... self-control? And so on, ad infinitum? I think I'm beginning to understand this type of thinking. What is your opinion on the question of dualism in philosophy of the mind? Do you believe the brain is the be-all-end-all? Do you believe free will is an actuality or merely a hypothesis? And why? You cannot object to free will without a cogent argument.
You do not have to be a dualist to believe in free will. Anyway, if he says that it has 'nothing to do with "self-control"' and thinks that the programming of the brain is the whole explanatory story, then it is pretty clear that there is some sort of determinism going on here. The general account is that it is not the fat person's fault because they do not have control over their desires or actions. There are plenty of determinists out there, and plenty of people that think that the brain is all we need to explain behavior. Leaning on this kind of account is as much a 'cogent argument' as name-dropping 'dualism in the philosophy of mind.'
|
On March 07 2012 01:25 liberal wrote:Oh jesus christ, here we go again, get the government involved and punish innocent people under atrocious reasoning... Please people, please realize that there is no "unhealthy food," only unhealthy quantities of consumption of certain food.
You're helping his point. If it's about quantity, the bigger buyers will pay the most.
|
On March 07 2012 01:40 vandelayindustries wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:38 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:34 vandelayindustries wrote:On March 07 2012 01:25 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:18 vandelayindustries wrote:
Tax unhealthy food and soda Oh jesus christ, here we go again, get the government involved and punish innocent people under atrocious reasoning... Please people, please realize that there is no "unhealthy food," only unhealthy quantities of consumption of certain food. There is nothing "unhealthy" about sugar, it's fundamental to survival... If I take a few sips of soda, it won't be unhealthy. If I drink a liter in a day, it will be unhealthy. Clearly some degree of regulation is necessary as the American people—on average—have proven they are incapable of taking care of their bodies. The proportion of people who die in this country due to weight-related heart failure or prescription drug is overwhelming, I don't think it's enough anymore to say that people, due to constitutional right to free dominion over their body, should be exempt from criticism or punishment for their unhealthy and anti-social behaviors. If you think over-eating to the point of obesity or poor health is not anti-social behavior but purely self-destructive you are very wrong. Except these taxes don't punish behavior, they simply tax food. There's a clear difference there, which was the point you missed in my post. You should consider examining the issue from an economic perspective, you may then gain a greater appreciation for what I am saying.
Tax suger and you get more artificial sweateners. How is that better? People won't chance their habits by it, the food industry will simply adapt to find new ways to sell the kind of food that people want. Taxes can be useful in certain cases but simply putting taxes on what is considered unhealthy food won't solve any problems.
|
On March 07 2012 01:39 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:25 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:18 vandelayindustries wrote:
Tax unhealthy food and soda Oh jesus christ, here we go again, get the government involved and punish innocent people under atrocious reasoning... Please people, please realize that there is no "unhealthy food," only unhealthy quantities of consumption of certain food. There is nothing "unhealthy" about sugar, it's fundamental to survival... If I take a few sips of soda, it won't be unhealthy. If I drink a liter in a day, it will be unhealthy. I personally perceive the problem to be the ridiculous amounts of sugar put into American food products. Walk down any supermarket in the US and check on the ingredients of any products that isn't fruit/veggies/meat/rice. I bet you that you won't find a single brand of bread that has no sugar in it. Same goes for any sauce, microwave food, and pretty much everything that has more than a single ingredient. Why? Sugar is indeed fundamental to survival, but the quantities of sugar the American public is exposed to is basically criminal. Nature made sugar hard to get, men made it hard to avoid.
It isn't hard to avoid. Like you said, people have the option to eat fruit/veggies/meat/rice/etc. The public is also exposed to packs of pure sugar in the grocery store, that doesn't mean they are pressured to consume it. Exposure isn't the problem, it's the behavior itself, the desire to eat food that tastes good.
And if you want to know why so much food is so high in sugar and fat, that is the reason: because it's what people have chosen. The market is supplying the demand.
When I go to a restaurant, I usually box half the food up and take it home. If I wanted, I could eat the entire thing in one sitting. A tax on the "unhealthy" food has absolutely zero affect on whether I choose to eat unhealthy QUANTITIES or not. All it will do is act as a regressive tax on the poor, who are disproportionately obese.
|
On March 07 2012 01:45 zerglingrodeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:39 vandelayindustries wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 07 2012 01:35 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:32 hongo wrote:On March 07 2012 01:22 liberal wrote:
It has nothing to do with "self-control," it's simply that his brain more frequently values the pleasure of eating/relaxing over the desire to be thinner. Your brain has been programmed to judge differently (and your genes/metabolism surely plays a factor as well), it doesn't mean your "self-control" is superior. But that's what self-control is defined as, "self-denial: the act of denying yourself; controlling your impulses." So by your own response, it has everything to do with self-control and denying himself the pleasure of eating pizza and wings 3 times a week. And you can "program" your brain, it's all about developing habits. It's not like he was a baby in the womb who was programmed to love food and love sitting in his char for 10 hours a day, it's a habit he developed. Of course it's hard to break habits and develop new ones, but it's not like it's out of his control. Hmmm.... would you say he can also control his self-control, using... self-control? And so on, ad infinitum? I think I'm beginning to understand this type of thinking. What is your opinion on the question of dualism in philosophy of the mind? Do you believe the brain is the be-all-end-all? Do you believe free will is an actuality or merely a hypothesis? And why? You cannot object to free will without a cogent argument. You do not have to be a dualist to believe in free will. Anyway, if he says that it has 'nothing to do with "self-control"' and thinks that the programming of the brain is the whole explanatory story, then it is pretty clear that there is some sort of determinism going on here. The general account is that it is not the fat person's fault because they do not have control over their desires or actions. There are plenty of determinists out there, and plenty of people that think that the brain is all we need to explain behavior. Leaning on this kind of account is as much a 'cogent argument' as name-dropping 'dualism in the philosophy of mind.'
The fact that determinists exist—hard determinists or otherwise—does just as little, doesn't it? The real issue is whether or not cognitive behaviorism holds any water beyond a social context when discussing free will. In my opinion—and as an ardent supporter of Skinner and his work—I'm not so sure that it does. The problem of other minds makes this an impossible discussion to hold without centering it around anecdotal evidence and guesswork.
|
On March 07 2012 01:48 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:25 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:18 vandelayindustries wrote:
Tax unhealthy food and soda Oh jesus christ, here we go again, get the government involved and punish innocent people under atrocious reasoning... Please people, please realize that there is no "unhealthy food," only unhealthy quantities of consumption of certain food. You're helping his point. If it's about quantity, the bigger buyers will pay the most.
Wrong. Because it isn't about quantity of all food, it's about the specific types of food. He didn't propose taxing all food, only "unhealthy" food. And food is only unhealthy in quantity, not in type.
If I buy a bag of "unhealthy" chips, am I going to eat it in one day? Am I going to eat it over the course of a month? Am I going to distribute it in small amounts to my family of 6? Should large families be punished for purchasing larger amounts of food?
The point is very clear: you cannot regulate individual consumption.
Should we tax pure sugar used for cooking? How do we regulate how much sugar people put in their food while cooking?
|
On March 07 2012 01:49 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:40 vandelayindustries wrote:On March 07 2012 01:38 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:34 vandelayindustries wrote:On March 07 2012 01:25 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:18 vandelayindustries wrote:
Tax unhealthy food and soda Oh jesus christ, here we go again, get the government involved and punish innocent people under atrocious reasoning... Please people, please realize that there is no "unhealthy food," only unhealthy quantities of consumption of certain food. There is nothing "unhealthy" about sugar, it's fundamental to survival... If I take a few sips of soda, it won't be unhealthy. If I drink a liter in a day, it will be unhealthy. Clearly some degree of regulation is necessary as the American people—on average—have proven they are incapable of taking care of their bodies. The proportion of people who die in this country due to weight-related heart failure or prescription drug is overwhelming, I don't think it's enough anymore to say that people, due to constitutional right to free dominion over their body, should be exempt from criticism or punishment for their unhealthy and anti-social behaviors. If you think over-eating to the point of obesity or poor health is not anti-social behavior but purely self-destructive you are very wrong. Except these taxes don't punish behavior, they simply tax food. There's a clear difference there, which was the point you missed in my post. You should consider examining the issue from an economic perspective, you may then gain a greater appreciation for what I am saying. Tax suger and you get more artificial sweateners. How is that better? People won't chance their habits by it, the food industry will simply adapt to find new ways to sell the kind of food that people want. Taxes can be useful in certain cases but simply putting taxes on what is considered unhealthy food won't solve any problems.
Taxes are not the only form of regulation, which, as I have clarified is what is truly needed (not merely taxation).
|
On March 07 2012 01:38 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:34 vandelayindustries wrote:On March 07 2012 01:25 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:18 vandelayindustries wrote:
Tax unhealthy food and soda Oh jesus christ, here we go again, get the government involved and punish innocent people under atrocious reasoning... Please people, please realize that there is no "unhealthy food," only unhealthy quantities of consumption of certain food. There is nothing "unhealthy" about sugar, it's fundamental to survival... If I take a few sips of soda, it won't be unhealthy. If I drink a liter in a day, it will be unhealthy. Clearly some degree of regulation is necessary as the American people—on average—have proven they are incapable of taking care of their bodies. The proportion of people who die in this country due to weight-related heart failure or prescription drug is overwhelming, I don't think it's enough anymore to say that people, due to constitutional right to free dominion over their body, should be exempt from criticism or punishment for their unhealthy and anti-social behaviors. If you think over-eating to the point of obesity or poor health is not anti-social behavior but purely self-destructive you are very wrong. Except these taxes don't punish behavior, they simply tax food. There's a clear difference there, which was the point you missed in my post.
Better idea: Get rid of government involvement, allow bullying of fat kids.
User was warned for this post
|
On March 07 2012 01:22 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:17 hongo wrote:
Getting fat is the result of a complete lack of self control. People "want" to lose the weight, but they don't want to change how they eat/live. It's ridiculous. (I have a 350 lb roommate so I get to observe this phenomena every day. And then he complains all the time.) It has nothing to do with "self-control," it's simply that his brain more frequently values the pleasure of eating/relaxing over the desire to be thinner. Your brain has been programmed to judge differently (and your genes/metabolism surely plays a factor as well), it doesn't mean your "self-control" is superior.
One of the main characteristics of being human is that we, as a species, are able to resist and not give in to instinctive impulses. Instinct can tell us to do one thing (which is irrationality), but we're perfectly able to do the complete opposite, if we've come to the rational conclusion that the former is bad for us.
|
On March 07 2012 01:50 liberal wrote:
When I go to a restaurant, I usually box half the food up and take it home. If I wanted, I could eat the entire thing in one sitting.
You know what you could do? you could leave it on the plate. And when the staff comes over and says "was there anything wrong with your meal sir?!" you could say "yes! I am but a man, and you have served dinner for four."
|
On March 07 2012 01:53 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:48 TanTzoR wrote:On March 07 2012 01:25 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:18 vandelayindustries wrote:
Tax unhealthy food and soda Oh jesus christ, here we go again, get the government involved and punish innocent people under atrocious reasoning... Please people, please realize that there is no "unhealthy food," only unhealthy quantities of consumption of certain food. You're helping his point. If it's about quantity, the bigger buyers will pay the most. Wrong. Because it isn't about quantity of all food, it's about the specific types of food. He didn't propose taxing all food, only "unhealthy" food. And food is only unhealthy in quantity, not in type.
Read before answering please.
He is talking about taxing unhealthy food. You say there is no point because unhealthy food is unhealthy only on large quantities. But if someone buys large quantities of unhealthy food he will pay more tax, compared to someone who buys small quantity of unhealthy food and a large quantity of healthy food untaxed.
So if the people care about their money, they will prioritize healthy food. Not saying it's a good tax to do. But his point is valid.
"And food is only unhealthy in quantity, not in type." You know nothing about dietetics do you?
|
On March 07 2012 02:00 Nallen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:50 liberal wrote:
When I go to a restaurant, I usually box half the food up and take it home. If I wanted, I could eat the entire thing in one sitting. You know what you could do? you could leave it on the plate. And when the staff comes over and says "was there anything wrong with your meal sir?!" you could say "yes! I am but a man, and you have served dinner for four."
lol that's pretty funny 
But I actually love that I can enjoy restaurant quality food for longer than just one meal. The more they are willing to give me, the better I can eat for the week. There are certainly "economies of scale" which favor larger portions of food rather than smaller.
|
Pointing out to people they're fucking fat is the only way they might take action to change. If no one bothers them about them being fat, why would they bother?
Of course there are issues that aren't helping, like unhealthy food and such, but that doesn't mean you should just go and get fat. Eat less, eat healthier, etc. There's almost never really an excuse for being fat other than you're too lazy to change.
Parents letting their kids get fat, and then protecting the fact, is pretty sad. 
|
The thing that bugs me the most is people who are proud of being fat. You wouldn't be proud if you were a smoker, you wouldn't be proud if you were an alcoholic, so why the fuck should you be proud of the fact that you're costing society money AND mrake yourself die ealier. What kind of example is that for young people, it's OK to be obese? No it's not. It's alright if you're fine with it yourself, just don't tell other peopdle that it's great an should be accepted. You have a choice not to eat, just as you have with smoking, drinking, doing drugs etc.
It's not like someone is secretely putting cakedough in your salad every lunch...
I just don't get how it's acceptable at all and such a taboo to call someone fat if they have done it to themselves.
|
On March 07 2012 02:01 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2012 01:53 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:48 TanTzoR wrote:On March 07 2012 01:25 liberal wrote:On March 07 2012 01:18 vandelayindustries wrote:
Tax unhealthy food and soda Oh jesus christ, here we go again, get the government involved and punish innocent people under atrocious reasoning... Please people, please realize that there is no "unhealthy food," only unhealthy quantities of consumption of certain food. You're helping his point. If it's about quantity, the bigger buyers will pay the most. Wrong. Because it isn't about quantity of all food, it's about the specific types of food. He didn't propose taxing all food, only "unhealthy" food. And food is only unhealthy in quantity, not in type. Read before answering please. He is talking about taxing unhealthy food. You say there is no point because unhealthy food is unhealthy only on large quantities. But if someone buys large quantities of unhealthy food....
You state my argument for me, and then immediately forget it in the next sentence. You still have the idea in your head that a food is unhealthy.
And besides, buying large quantities of food is not the same thing as consuming large quantities of food, which is a point I've repeated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
