Guard Dog Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 So how would they have dealt with the massive amounts of depressions that crop up after they take away peoples fun, I wonder? Ban being sad? As soon as I quit smoking, my mood went straight to hell, because literally my one vice was gone. Thought Police of course. You know that's coming too. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blarghagh Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I blame Vegans. But they are too strong to battle. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amentep Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Yeah, I'm not crazy about these kind of developments (much like New York's attempt to ban supersized drinks). They just seem wrongheaded. I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azdeus Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Thought Police of course. You know that's coming too. I feel nothing but sympathy for the person that has to endure looking into my thoughts for but a moment. "And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you". I'm so, so depressed. /emo This is a better situation than the opposite though. Without a government to limit people and corporations, it'd just be worse though. Imagine megacorps having free hands instead of being bound by law. Not that they're really bound by law anymore, since they can essentially pay to get around it, but still. Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I'm not pro-regulation, but I do wonder what you folks suggest to do in order to break the cycle of childhood obesity we are currently mired in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gfted1 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Balanced diet provided by the parents? Exercise? Am I misinterpreting your question? Are you advocating that childhood obesity is something the government needs to be involved in? "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgon Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 It would be kinda nice if all the regular foods you bought at the supermarket, I'm talking non deserts, contained the appropriate levels of salt and sugar. You migth not like it, but legislation like that could easily ad years to your lives with no extra effort on your end at all. Right now those levels are skewed, you get too much salt, which gradually poisions you, and too much suggar, which increases diabetes chances. Now, I'm not advocating banning either. You can still buy as much salt and suggar as you like, but as a cheap method of adding taste to processed foods, it's dangerous to your health. It's the trans fat debacle all over again, and most people have come around on that front, agreeing that it needed to be watched carefully. 1 Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blarghagh Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) I don't know how to stop childhood obesity - obviously ostracizing fat people hasn't worked since it's only getting worse. I'm not sure if it's other people's jobs to combat obesity. On the other hand, I think letting your child get morbidly obese because you're feeding them badly is essentially child neglect, and that if there has to be regulation, I'd start with penalizing those who apparently cannot take care of their children properly. I'm not for that solution, I'd rather leave parenting to the parents rather than anything else and if you start enforcing something like that, where is the line drawn that you'll stop enforcing? On the other hand, it's pretty much the only thing that seems close to fair to me - it would only hit the problem and not everyone. And who am I to say that they apparently cannot take care of their children? I have to admit, I personally eat a lot of cheap **** simply because it's cheap and easy and eating well all the time is, quite frankly, a bit out of my money and time-budget. I can't even imagine how much this problem increases when you add children to the mix. You could make products less unhealthy, but I find it likely this will increase the cost and put everyone back to square one. So yeah, difficult problem, slippery slope and all that. The only thing that seems to be sure that if there is a solution, buggering everybody with increased prices isn't it. Edited February 4, 2014 by TrueNeutral 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azdeus Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I'm not pro-regulation, but I do wonder what you folks suggest to do in order to break the cycle of childhood obesity we are currently mired in? Treat it as childabuse, allow more stemcell research to provide medical intervention alternatives, allow healthier GM foodcrops, regulated nutritional values in fastfood. If you want to go the regulation way of things that is. Though the only way really to get childhood obesity in check is to get kids moving, wich is'nt really feasible when instant access to interesting entertainment is in your hand, available wherever you go. It's easier and more fun apparently to play on your touchpad/phone than play football, floorball or any sport that could help. That parents don't take responsibility for their kids health and no matter what people tell them, they don't take action is cause for governments to take action. I'm not happy about the WHO wanting to take action, but I'm not naive enough to think it'd go well to regulate the worlds most popular drug even more than it is. Prohibition did'nt work. Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 It may be because my wife teaches PE, but I do agree that getting kids moving is a huge component of childhood obesity. Balanced diet provided by the parents? Exercise? Am I misinterpreting your question? Are you advocating that childhood obesity is something the government needs to be involved in? My bad for not clarifying. What I was asking was how do we get parents to buy in to the balanced diet and exercise. I'm talking as a society, not necessarily from a government perspective. There is a lot of programs out there already that are trying to change the fast food and diabetes culture. But they don't seem to be winning. I just think that if we are going to raise havoc over the government getting involved in our health, then we need to have alternative solutions that preclude that involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I'm surprised by the willingness to label it child neglect or abuse. That's a very serious charge, and at what threshold do you hold the parents responsible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcador Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 When the kid is classed as obese by a doctor, I'd guess. Making PE mandatory for kids up until they leave high school was one interesting suggestion I've seen in the past, though compelling them to do things usually backfires Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azdeus Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 It may be because my wife teaches PE, but I do agree that getting kids moving is a huge component of childhood obesity. I remember fondly when my class managed to vex our PE teacher to the point where she flipped and started tossing metal ring binders at us. Best game of dodgeball ever! <3 She had earned our respect! :D I'm surprised by the willingness to label it child neglect or abuse. That's a very serious charge, and at what threshold do you hold the parents responsible? I'd leave that to a group of nutritionists and pediatricians to decide, because I'm woefully underqualified to even guess that. Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. - H.L. Mencken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blarghagh Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Causing or allowing your child to become morbidly obese is harmful to the child, who is your responsibility. Your are causing or allowing your child to be harmed. That's why it's easy to label it as neglect or abuse, because honestly the facts support that label. But as you said, the threshold is the big problem there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nonek Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Well as a parent I think the wise course of action would be a total ban on children, give it a hundred years and i'm sure we'll see very positive results in the fight against all kinds of issues. In fact I guarantee it. 1 Quite an experience to live in misery isn't it? That's what it is to be married with children.I've seen things you people can't even imagine. Pearly Kings glittering on the Elephant and Castle, Morris Men dancing 'til the last light of midsummer. I watched Druid fires burning in the ruins of Stonehenge, and Yorkshiremen gurning for prizes. All these things will be lost in time, like alopecia on a skinhead. Time for tiffin. Tea for the teapot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blarghagh Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I thought life expectancy was part of the problem? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 healthcare is the ultimate backstage pass into every aspect of our lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyrock Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Criminal cartels? Are you suggesting sugar bootleggers will appear? Man, that is a great idea for a cartoon. Obligatory: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1198892/guarding_sugar/ Also, a reminder that, as hard as it is to believe today, once upon a time, eons ago, The Simpsons was a funny show. 1 RFK Jr 2024 "Any organization created out of fear must create fear to survive." - Bill Hicks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Holy **** this thread moves FAST. So how would they have dealt with the massive amounts of depressions that crop up after they take away peoples fun, I wonder? Ban being sad? As soon as I quit smoking, my mood went straight to hell, because literally my one vice was gone. Thought Police of course. You know that's coming too. No need for that, brah. You already have the legions of conformity and cultural homogeneity doing a great job at vituperating, ridiculing and ostracizing anyone that seriously questions the foundations of "prosperity" and the "western way of life". And best of all is, they do it on their own dime. Beautiful, isn't it? I'm not sure if it's other people's jobs to combat obesity. On the other hand, I think letting your child get morbidly obese because you're feeding them badly is essentially child neglect, and that if there has to be regulation, I'd start with penalizing those who apparently cannot take care of their children properly. I'm not for that solution, I'd rather leave parenting to the parents rather than anything else and if you start enforcing something like that, where is the line drawn that you'll stop enforcing? On the other hand, it's pretty much the only thing that seems close to fair to me - it would only hit the problem and not everyone. And who am I to say that they apparently cannot take care of their children? I have to admit, I personally eat a lot of cheap **** simply because it's cheap and easy and eating well all the time is, quite frankly, a bit out of my money and time-budget. I can't even imagine how much this problem increases when you add children to the mix. You could make products less unhealthy, but I find it likely this will increase the cost and put everyone back to square one. Yeah... how about working towards a society where people can actually make informed decisions (education) and act on those decisions (wealth distribution)? Punitive/coercive measures are notoriously ineffectual at driving meaningful social change. There are no simple solutions that can be adopted just by signing off on a law. Access to quality food is one factor, but there are others such as affordability and the ever-decreasing availability of time to do anything that isn't slave away for minimum wage. Does anyone seriously believe that people willingly eat **** laden with poisons on a daily basis if the alternative were just as quick and easy? Ah, but who cares. So long as it's not me getting a stroke (or cancer, or multiple sclerosis, or...) IDGAF. Life's good, yoloswag, etc. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orogun01 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I wonder if it wouldn't be best to teach Americans about moderation, I've been living among them and I think they've never heard of it. Or small portions, or medium portions for that matter. 2 I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsingham Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) This is funny because I was just checking into the thread to see if GD had said something about health insurance that would send me back the other way. Well? Did I? Nearly, man. Nearly. EDIT: Death may be the ultimate obscenity, but I find it a farcical adornment to bow and scrape before learned men who avow our best reaction to be placid and pure inaction. How can it be right that we should extend our lives by not living them? I do not believe that puling abstinence can be the correct way to burn up my fragile and flashbulb span of experience and thought. To refrain from hurting others by my life I can understand. But to refrain from hurting yourself? It's as much cowardice as it is vanity. Curse, fail, fall, shine, shiver. And do not pretend otherwise. Edited February 5, 2014 by Walsingham "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mor Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 How can it be right that we should extend our lives by not living them?How can it be right that there is actions and personal consequences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsingham Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 How can it be right that we should extend our lives by not living them?How can it be right that there is actions and personal consequences? I don't follow you. I'm saying of course there are consequences. But that doesn't mean you can avoid all consequences by taking no action. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mor Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I was stirring up the health insurance pot There is despite your OP statement, while most things cause cancer the one noted are the most common/hazardous which are easily preventable. I don't need to pay for other people habits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrath of Dagon Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 That's what happens, you start out with the innocent sounding Commerce Clause and you wind up with Chairman Obama. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now