#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Should people be told what they can and cant eat based on proportions and health issues?
People think that America is fat, and that this issue should be solved by controlling what people eat and how much of it they eat, and even taxing things like beverages because they have added sugar. Shouldnt people decide what they eat? Is it really society's problem if there are overweight people out there?
Yes, they should
Side Score: 33
|
NO! What the heck?
Side Score: 37
|
|
By all means, people should be well informed about what is good for them and what is bad for them, what a proper portion size is, and how to control their weight. If I had to choose between being embarrassed about my weight, and dying early because of it, I would choose the former. It is a doctor's job to tell their patients the truth, even if it hurts their feelings. However if you mean should people be somehow forced to eat healthy, or should strangers on the street be yelling at fat people, then the answer is no. Side: Yes, they should
I take the broader, bigger view on this, which i believe is backed by medicine, but i am not stating that to support my reasoning or view. If u choose to eat as u like then expect to pay for the consequences of your choices, that is after all what makes an adult. If u r not in the position to make the decisions yourself(i.e u r a child or under care or some other valid reason), then by all means eat as is provided. However, the benefits of eating well, combined with exercise and other healthy forms of existing, should be enough to persuade anyone to make that choice. I am fully aware of the cost implications, time and effort/energy required to make this all work, but like a said, the pros outweigh the cons. I think these health experts and officials should use sex to support their claims, maybe then people will listen. I could go on about this for ever, but i'll leave it there. Side: Yes, they should
Well, sex sells, and it gets people's attention. There are obvious benefits to be gained, sexually, from having a good healthy diet and lifestyle. Since i find most people find it hard to motivate themselves or bother for whatever reason to be healthy based on the health benefits alone, then why not point out the benefits to be had by linking it with sex. Side: NO! What the heck?
"The economic cost of all this extra fat is immense. Direct medical costs are easiest to calculate, coming in at $93 billion, or 9%, of our national medical bill. But there are other costs as well that are harder to pin down. ... One speculative solution: In surveys, people have said that they would be willing to lose 10 pounds--and keep it off--if they were paid $225. If people can't see the savings of staying slim, maybe the solution is to make their pocketbooks heavier." http://www.forbes.com/2006/07/19/ Side: Yes, they should
I should preface this argument/rebuttal with the statement that I find it so flabbergasting that a large number of people in society want their governments to effectively compel those around them to live their private lives as they think they should, that I tend to be speechless when it comes to giving a proper rebuttal. In a society everyone has different values, this is such an intrinsic part of life that we hardly think about it. If we suddenly started enforcing everyone's values as laws we would have a messy life full of contradictions. A good way to keep this from happening is to consider whether a law or regulation crosses the boundary of personal space. It's not perfect, but looking at laws this way keeps us aware of whether a law is too private or personal, and thus not worthy of consideration. I'll give a prosaic example in the anti-buggery laws and anti-sodomy laws that used to (and in some states still do) exist. These laws made oral sex and anal sex illegal, their main support came from parties against homosexuality. The point? Sex is a private affair, and so this type of law walked on peoples' toes when it came to enforcement. Still another good example can be seen in Kyllo v. United States where in order to enforce Cannabis possession restraints thermal imaging was used to eavesdrop upon a person's private property without their consent. In this case a person's private space was violated in an attempt to enforce a law that restricts the ability to own a substance. I happen to value individual freedom very highly, as well as personal responsibility. Therefore I cannot comprehend the mindset of people like you (the one I'm rebutting as well as those behind the idea of an essential sugar/fat tax) because in my mind the only reasons you would want the government to be involved in other people's private lives is if you think that freedom is worthless and you need some sort of authority to tell people how to live their private lives, or perhaps worse you think that some aspect in the way you live ought to be the standard for everybody else. Taxing sugar in foods or fatty foods is essentially fining people for choosing to have dietary preferences that are different from your own. It attempts to force them to choose to eat the way you approve. I can think of few things as petty as a mindset that finds the need to control such a thing in everybody's lives. Side: NO! What the heck?
"I find it so flabbergasting..." I really don't see what the big deal is. A minor carrot/stick isn't going to affect any individual's life in any great way. It's not like the Gestapo is kicking in doors and disappearing people off to fat camp. "If we suddenly started enforcing everyone's values as laws we would have a messy life full of contradictions" I agree, but we do enforce universal values. And I think controlling healthcare costs is sufficiently universal. "A good way to keep this from happening is to consider whether a law or regulation crosses the boundary of personal space." Privacy and personal space are important, but they are not sacrosanct. You have to weigh the cost of invading one's personal life against the potential benefits. You also have to take the degree of invasion into account. A minor economic incentive, for example, is almost completely non-invasive. "anti-sodomy laws" The difference is that anti-sodomy laws were based on invalid premises. "Kyllo v. United States" Yes, I think it's clear that was a bad law. Again, it's a question of degree. "in my mind the only reasons you would want the government to be involved..." I want to maximize the well-being of society. It's the only logical thing to do. If that requires government to be involved in people's private lives, then so be it. If obesity didn't cause problems for everyone, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Side: Yes, they should
I really don't see what the big deal is. A minor carrot/stick isn't going to affect any individual's life in any great way. It's not like the Gestapo is kicking in doors and disappearing people off to fat camp. It's because it's not your right, or the government's right to stick their noses into those affairs. If a man wants to eat until he's 2000 pounds and needs to move with a forklift, that is his right. If a man happens to have a metabolism that lets him eat fatty foods while maintaining a slim body, that is his right. If a person wants to eat only broccoli, or red meat, or whatever, that is their right. It isn't the job of the government to delegate better food choices to everybody. What is wrong with you? You can't make your own decisions and need a massive, military and police-wielding force telling you what decisions you ought to be making? Or are you the type that thinks people around you need to act a certain way, or look a certain way, because you can't be bothered to deal with differences? I agree, but we do enforce universal values. And I think controlling healthcare costs is sufficiently universal. Food does not equal healthcare. Privacy and personal space are important, but they are not sacrosanct. You have to weigh the cost of invading one's personal life against the potential benefits. You also have to take the degree of invasion into account. A minor economic incentive, for example, is almost completely non-invasive. This isn't a topic where there is a position for someone to be weighing the costs and benefits and choosing for everyone else what the best decision ought to be. Quite frankly, personal space here is sacred. It's one of the important pillars of free society to have your own space and identity and to be free from arbitrary sanctions. What makes a free society free, among other things, is that there isn't an appointed official who can choose the best way for you to live your life, and compel you in any way to live that way. It's bad enough that thanks to pious, and pompous individuals that this important concept has been slowly eroded away because these people seem to think it is their duty to regulate how everyone ought to live through law. The difference is that anti-sodomy laws were based on invalid premises. There is no difference because we're not discussing the legitimacy of the premises in either argument, but instead how they are being enforced, and the right of the people to enforce them. Yes, I think it's clear that was a bad law. Again, it's a question of degree. Your problem is, you don't see these precedents and think "hey, you know, we really don't want a society where government is invasive enough on our rights and private lives that we have to change to avoid being ripped off by taxes, or arrested, etc." instead you think "the problem is these invasive laws weren't done quite as I'd like." I want to maximize the well-being of society. It's the only logical thing to do. If that requires government to be involved in people's private lives, then so be it. If obesity didn't cause problems for everyone, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Do you know what maximises the well-being of society? The freedom to think and reason out ways to live good lives. The freedom to be wasteful, or unhealthy too, because some people need that. The freedom to not have to conform to a young idiot's god complex, that also helps very much. If you want to make society better, stop looking at the top. Make grass roots efforts for changing people's minds on how to eat, or live. Stop looking to the legal system. Side: NO! What the heck?
"It's because it's not your right... [tantrum elided]" The idea that certain magical rights exist that cannot be violated under any circumstances is bunk. When we say "rights", what we really mean is "guidelines". Following guidelines such as "people have a right to life" tends to maximize happiness. But all I have to do is come up with some hypothetical circumstance where a right ought to be violated and we can see that there are exceptions to these rules. "Food does not equal healthcare." Is the relationship between fatty foods, obesity, and healthcare costs really so hard to grasp? "personal space here is sacred. It's one of the important pillars of free society to have your own space and identity" I see now the core of your argument. It is based on religious rather than rational thinking. Why is freedom so valuable? Because it tends to lead to greater well-being. It is a means to an end, not the end in itself. Having to pay 75 cents for a jelly donut instead of the usual 50 isn't going to lead to the downfall of western civilization. " and to be free from arbitrary sanctions" The sanctions we are discussing are far from arbitrary. "The freedom to be wasteful, or unhealthy too, because some people need that." Nobody needs that. "grass roots efforts for changing people's minds on how to eat, or live" There is a limit to what can be accomplished through persuasion. Many people are simply not capable of rational thinking when it conflicts with their own short-term interests. And finally, the abuse is unnecessary. It only makes discussion more difficult. If kindness is beyond you, at least show some self control. Side: Yes, they should
The idea that certain magical rights exist... irrelevant diatribe skipped I never said that magical rights exist. I said that we have rights granted to us in a free society, and that those rights do not allow you the position of food-patrol. Is the relationship between fatty foods, obesity, and healthcare... random insult, etc. Food isn't sanctioned in healthcare law. I see now the core of your argument. It is based on religious rather than rational thinking... yadda yadda yadda hyperbole You mistake great respect with irrationality. If you care so much about using taxes I suggest you voluntarily pay an extra 25 cents on your jelly doughnuts. My rights, indeed our right to make food choices, amongst other such rights, are more important than your need to play Sim City with real life. You still haven't made a cogent argument for why a a majority of the population's interests should be ignored in a government decision that reflects only a tiny minority's desires and only has a minimal return. You also failed to support the premise that your position has any more legal footing than say, a law mandating that everybody exercises at least an hour a day because "it would improve societal well-being." The sanctions we are discussing are far from arbitrary. Your sanctions are as arbitrary as mandating a minimal amount of exercise per day, or penalising people who have a high calorie diet, or illegalising whole fat versions of foods, or taxing SUVs, or penalising those who don't use car pools. There are many ways we could force the country to act in a way that would "benefit well being" but all these methods just as yours, are arbitrary because of lack of consistency, and invasive. Nobody needs that. Some people find fulfilment in recklessness or danger, or messiness. There is a limit to what can be accomplished through persuasion. Many people are simply not capable of rational thinking when it conflicts with their own short-term interests. Welcome to the human race. Please visit customs before leaving the terminal for a brief introduction in human nature. You must be a very powerless individual to continually insist upon the need to tell everyone how the ought to live. And finally, the abuse is unnecessary. It only makes discussion more difficult. If kindness is beyond you, at least show some self control. If you don't like sarcasm and insulting language, stop making such vapid arguments for a position that can only ever be a purely academic one. Side: NO! What the heck?
"I said that we have rights granted to us in a free society..." Granted to us? By who? Society chooses how society should operate. "Food isn't sanctioned in healthcare law." Food and healthcare are obviously connected. Stop ignoring the issue. "You still haven't made a cogent argument for why a a majority of the population's interests should be ignored in a government decision that reflects only a tiny minority's desires and only has a minimal return." That's a blatant strawman. At this point I can only conclude that you are intentionally refusing to understand my position. "legal footing" Legal technicalities are outside the scope of the current debate. "mandating a minimal amount of exercise per day" Again, it's a question of degree. A minor tax is much less intrusive. The benefits outweigh the costs. "lack of consistency" There is no lack of consistency. We should maximize the well being of society. A forced hour of exercise would probably be too great a cost for the benefit. "Some people find fulfilment in recklessness or danger, or messiness." Yes, but I said nobody needs that. "You must be a very powerless individual..." I am. And so are you. The power of any individual is tiny compared to the collective power of a nation. "stop making such vapid arguments" My arguments are not vapid. You're just trying to demonize me to justify being a huge asshole. Whatever. I can't force you to be civil. Side: Yes, they should
Granted to us? By who? Society chooses how society should operate. Specifically a country's constitution. I shouldn't have to hold your hand here. In the case of the United States, there is a bill of rights followed by additional law. Food and healthcare are obviously connected. Stop ignoring the issue. Healthcare covers medicine, and insurance, not food. That's a blatant strawman. At this point I can only conclude that you are intentionally refusing to understand my position. It is an accurate summary of your position. Taxing sugared foods is not something the majority wants, only the very few control-freaks like yourself actually want this. You yourself even admitted that the benefits wouldn't be life-changing, so essentially it's a proposal with marginal benefit that discriminates against the majority's interests. Oh by the way, do bother to learn what the terms you use actually mean. A strawman is a caricature, not a paraphrase or summary. Legal technicalities are outside the scope of the current debate. No they aren't. Pretending that your position is beyond legal scope only makes you look pompous. Again, it's a question of degree. A minor tax is much less intrusive. The benefits outweigh the costs. No. It's a question of overstepping boundaries. You are out of your boundaries in your position. There is no lack of consistency. We should maximize the well being of society. A forced hour of exercise would probably be too great a cost for the benefit. There is no lack of consistency. We should maximize the well being of society. A forced hour of exercise would probably be too great a cost for the benefit. You can tell a pompous idiot when he uses lofty but vague words or phrases like you do. "Maximise the well-being of society?" What the hell does that even mean? It can be read into as supporting eugenics, right up to forcing everyone to eat a certain way, work at a certain job, look a certain way, behave a certain way, and so on. As if your usage of a vague phrase isn't enough, you treat society like it ought to have some overarching purpose. It doesn't and never has. Beyond guaranteeing some basic rights and enabling people to exist, a society just is. It has no goal of self-improvement, or amassing wealth, or whatever silly notion crosses your mind. That's what makes you pompous, thinking it's your duty to give society a purpose. Yes, but I said nobody needs that. Maybe you don't need fulfilment, but the rest of us do. I am. And so are you. The power of any individual is tiny compared to the collective power of a nation. Nope, it's just you. A small ego betraying his lack of power in his arguments. My arguments are not vapid. You're just trying to demonize me to justify being a huge asshole. Whatever. I can't force you to be civil. I'm still waiting for you to make compelling arguments. This is civil, by the way, try browsing more of the internet to find out what uncivil is. Side: NO! What the heck?
First let me restate my position, just so we're clear: A minor economic incentive with regard to high-fat foods would lead to a decrease in healthcare costs while having next to no impact on people's lives. "Specifically a country's constitution." Where does the Consitution say we can't tax jelly donuts? "it's a proposal with marginal benefit that discriminates against the majority's interests" It discriminates against the majority's short-term interest in order to forward their greater long-term interest. ""Maximise the well-being of society?" What the hell does that even mean?" Sentient beings feel positive and negative emotions. Positive emotions should be maximized. Utilitarian fundamentals. "It can be read into as supporting eugenics, right up to forcing everyone to eat a certain way, work at a certain job, look a certain way, behave a certain way, and so on." That's true only if those things truly maximize the well being of society. It's not clear whether they actually do. "it ought to have some overarching purpose" It should. Positive feelings are good, therefore they ought to be maximized. "That's what makes you pompous..." I'm not pompous. Nor am I any of the many things you have accused me of being. You just have this childish need to inflict pain upon anyone who commits the sin of offending your ego by disagreeing with you. "Maybe you don't need fulfilment, but the rest of us do." A need is something that is necessary for a healthy life. One can find fufillment even if they need to pay 75 cents for a jelly donut. "Nope, it's just you." What makes you think you have so much more power than me? "try browsing more of the internet to find out what uncivil is." You are as bad as anyone I've seen, and I've seen a lot. Wrapping your barbs in intellectuality doesn't remove the injustice. Side: Yes, they should
Where does the Consitution say we can't tax jelly donuts? You asked where rights come from. It discriminates against the majority's short-term interest in order to forward their greater long-term interest. Which is where the "god complex" criticism comes from. It isn't anyone's right to mould society using long term interests that they arbitrarily assign. It's also in society's long term interests to redistribute wealth evenly, it's in society's long term interests to cull genetic defects from the human race, it's in society's long term interests to breed humans for intelligence and strength, and so on. However we do not allow our governments to do these things because governments are people-based which means that they are full of callousness, incompetence, and corruption. Sentient beings feel positive and negative emotions. Positive emotions should be maximized. Utilitarian fundamentals. You're not being perceptive. I was asking for limiting definitions, not vague speak that is inclusive of everything under the sun. You also miss the point of society, a society has no end goal. You want to maximise pleasure and happiness? Live that way yourself, start with yourself, stop making society your parent/guardian/god. It should. Positive feelings are good, therefore they ought to be maximized. What is government again? A system run by people who are given authority. What do people with authority do? They squander it because of their inability to see the whole picture and preoccupation with their small lives. What does this mean for you? A government that is allowed to direct how a society ought to be, according to a purpose, invariably leads to self-interest and deviants becoming scapegoats or persecuted by the conforming majority. I'm not pompous. Nor am I any of the many things you have accused me of being. You just have this childish need to inflict pain upon anyone who commits the sin of offending your ego by disagreeing with you. Pompous people annoy me; your kind annoys me because you (pl.) have such a naive, idealistic view of the world that has not been tempered by reality. That's why you think you (sing.) can have the most logical viewpoint on how life ought to be. A need is something that is necessary for a healthy life. One can find fufillment even if they need to pay 75 cents for a jelly donut. Some of us feel fulfilment from doing this thing called "living." We only have one, brief life and destructive and risky behaviours help us feel closer to our mortality which makes us feel our life by contrast. You find fulfilment in having someone take care of you, that's what gives you comfort. What makes you think you have so much more power than me? I didn't speak about myself in the last rebuttal. I said that you feel powerless. It is implied that I do not. You are as bad as anyone I've seen, and I've seen a lot. Wrapping your barbs in intellectuality doesn't remove the injustice. You should appreciate that I reveal my hand at each turn. Plenty of people will see what you say, both here and in real life, think you're naive and pompous, and never tell you it. If you want a cordial, or even friendly dialogue, I suggest you drop your arrogance which is making you blind to how many viewpoints and interpretations there are for this and other types of discussions. A minor economic incentive with regard to high-fat foods would lead to a decrease in healthcare costs while having next to no impact on people's lives. Which sounds to me like the thin edge of a wedge that is being hammered in on the base of our personal freedom of choice. What you need to understand is that your reasoning applies to tons of things we take for granted in our daily lives. You also need to understand that precedents lead to laws that become larger and more restrictive. On a normal day you encounter carcinogens from burnt or browned foods, you encounter traces of stibium from plastic bottles you carry juice, soda or water in. Certain glasses and ceramics we use to drink water or eat food from contain traces of lead. Kitchens contain ammonia, Sodium hypochlorite certain phenolics, hydrochloric acid, etc. which can be deadly or corrosive depending on how they're used. Certain spices we take for granted like basil have possible carcinogens in them. Going outside we encounter polluted air, or smoke, or exhaust, all of which are bad for you. We operate vehicles which kill and maim thousands annually. That's forgetting any guns or sharp objects we encounter, use, or walk by depending on context. Any one of these things if regulated by tax or laws would lead to "decreased healthcare costs" and depending upon legislation "next to no impact on people's lives." However, these types of laws and regulations take from us something very important: our ability to choose and learn from those choices. Having a life where everything is decided for you in some way leads to a more predictable and less critical-thinking-intensive life. For an example, back before the early 70s you could purchase firecrackers and M-80s, these were (are) fun little fireworks to play with but because some people were unable to reason properly and lit the units in their hands, eventually laws were passed which made them illegal. Part of the legal reasoning was also that it was dangerous for powerful explosive devices (M-80s) were easily obtained by consumers, as well. In other words, something that was fun to play with, and had many uses, was made illegal and now that avenue of fun is gone. Perhaps a better example might be the Atomic Energy Lab, from the 50s, a toy for inquisitive adolescents who wanted to learn about radiation. We don't get toys like that any longer because of great fears about radiation and safety, so now children must use these tiny, weakened chemistry sets that have trace amounts of chemicals with little to no glassware. It's much less interesting that way. http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/ That's the kit. The way this whole diatribe applies to our present subject is that your reasoning leads to a more regulated, restrictive environment, taking the fun out of life essentially. Specifically, however, targeting sweet foods means that baking a cake at home, or a pie, will be that much more expensive and so we'll see less of them. Those of us who like to make candy will get shafted, because who wants to pay 33% more for fudge, or whatever? That means you get tiny portions or it's done less often. Want to buy some croissants at the bakery? You'll pay a nifty tax now on them, just making life that much more annoying if you're in debt or not in a good paying job. Side: NO! What the heck?
"It isn't anyone's right to mould society using long term interests that they arbitrarily assign." I don't like the way you throw around the term "right". It's pretty vague. Are you saying the Constitution prohibits people from shaping society? And I assume you're using arbitrary to mean "capricious". There's nothing capricious at all about my suggestion. A tax on high fat foods would almost certainly make everyone happier in the long run. "However we do not allow our governments to do these things because governments are people-based which means that they are full of callousness, incompetence, and corruption." Not always. But yes, often. The question is simply whether the costs of government action outweigh the benefits. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. "a society has no end goal." Says who? We can cooperate as a society to make ourselves better off, so why not do so? "What do people with authority do? They squander it because of their inability to see the whole picture and preoccupation with their small lives." That's a hasty generalization. There are numerous examples of authority being used in positive ways. "A government that is allowed to direct how a society ought to be, according to a purpose, invariably leads to self-interest and deviants becoming scapegoats or persecuted by the conforming majority." Governments should be limited in what they can do, yes, because an overreaching government will often hurt more than help. But a minor economic incentive with regard to high fat foods would not be an overreach. As for deviants becoming scapegoats, that is a question of minority rights, not of government in itself. Maintaining minority rights promotes a sense of justice and fairness which in turn leads to a more stable society which in turn leads to greater happiness for all. "We only have one, brief life and destructive and risky behaviours help us feel closer to our mortality which makes us feel our life by contrast." You're being rather melodramatic here. "75 cents for a jelly donut? Why won't you let me live??" Yes, of course people should be able live as they please. But when their choices start to have a significant impact on other peoples' lives, government involvement becomes more appropriate. "blind to how many viewpoints and interpretations there are" How does arguing for one viewpoint imply that I am blind to others? I do believe my viewpoint is the right one, but am entirely willing to be persuaded otherwise. "Any one of these things if regulated by tax or laws would lead to "decreased healthcare costs" and depending upon legislation "next to no impact on people's lives."" And again, each case comes down to making a judgment of costs vs benefits. There is no slippery slope here. "Having a life where everything is decided for you..." That's not what I'm arguing for. "your reasoning leads to a more regulated, restrictive environment, taking the fun out of life essentially" No, because my reasoning takes fun into account. Should M-80s and radioactive science kits be legal? It ultimately comes down to whether the utility they provide outweighs the utility they take away. Where utility means capacity to create positive feelings or remove negative feelings. In both of those cases I think there's not a clear answer. In the case of a minor economic incentive with regard to high fat foods, I think there is a clear answer. "Specifically, however, targeting sweet foods means that [sweet foods become more expensive]." Yes, that is true, but then weigh that against the benefits of having lower medical costs, which would mean more accessible health care. And it's likely that people will be happier and more productive if they eat less fat. Also, it does not need to be a flat tax. It could be done on a geometric scale, for instance. So a small slice of pie would be taxed at say 1% while dangerous excesses like a mega-huge burger would be taxed at the full rate. Or it could be done as the Forbes article suggested, where people are given a monetary reward for keeping weight off. Side: Yes, they should
I don't like the way you throw around the term "right". It's pretty vague. Are you saying the Constitution prohibits people from shaping society? Right in this context means entitlement, prerogative, authority. In our society, it is a norm that we do not impose our whims upon others without their permission. This is seen as meddling, and is severely frowned upon depending upon context. This is why there is strong collective objection to social engineering at the behest of an official. Says who? We can cooperate as a society to make ourselves better off, so why not do so? Improving a society doesn't work well when done from the top down. It results in leaders' personal interests and their short-sightedness having deleterious effects across their jurisdiction. You have to work from the bottom up, this seems to have a better potential for serving everyone's interests more closely. However, this has the side effect of limiting the potential for directing society in a uniform direction. Governments should be limited in what they can do, yes, because an overreaching government will often hurt more than help. But a minor economic incentive with regard to high fat foods would not be an overreach. You continue to miss the point here. Governments that direct society and regulate behaviours are the superclass here, while arbitrary behavioural sanctions like taxing fatty foods or sugar are a class within that superclass. In other words you are seeking to shape government so that it becomes slowly more authoritarian. You're being rather melodramatic here. "75 cents for a jelly donut? Why won't you let me live??" Yes, of course people should be able live as they please. But when their choices start to have a significant impact on other peoples' lives, government involvement becomes more appropriate. I wasn't linking these concepts. The context denoted that I was explaining why people can enjoy and crave destructive behaviour. How does arguing for one viewpoint imply that I am blind to others? I do believe my viewpoint is the right one, but am entirely willing to be persuaded otherwise. You think that you have the most logical viewpoint, and this causes trouble because so many viewpoints are equally logical, the differences ultimately rely on premises which are based upon nothing more than values. This is why you are blind, you have different values but you think it is a matter of logic. And again, each case comes down to making a judgment of costs vs benefits. There is no slippery slope here. Your reasoning is inclusive of all those regulations. Go back to "bottom up" change and the misery an authoritarian government causes. That's not what I'm arguing for. It is the ultimate end of your reasoning. This is why my arguments seem melodramatic as you called them, because your reasoning leads to an authoritarian government, one in which a ruling class regulates the behaviours of its citizens against their majority interests. No, because my reasoning takes fun into account. Should M-80s and radioactive science kits be legal? It ultimately comes down to whether the utility they provide outweighs the utility they take away. Where utility means capacity to create positive feelings or remove negative feelings. In both of those cases I think there's not a clear answer. In the case of a minor economic incentive with regard to high fat foods, I think there is a clear answer. Do you have any concept of how these faulty governments come into power? Do you think that suddenly a bill is passed that gives the government control over everything you eat or drink? What happens is that small bills are passed that gradually restrict more and more activities that we take for granted until there are no activities left that are unregulated. You are fighting for a type of law that has no necessity, has no positive affects on the population, and discriminates on people based upon a minority's values of how people should eat. People already pay for healthcare either through taxes or insurance. People will eat what they like. But this type of law is intended to essentially take a stab at a large segment of the population for eating sweets. These types of laws never end there, they always become gradually more intrusive. All for a type of government that essentially says "we don't think you should eat this, you must pay more to discourage your consumption." Yes, that is true, but then weigh that against the benefits of having lower medical costs, which would mean more accessible health care. And it's likely that people will be happier and more productive if they eat less fat. Wrong and wrong. Insurance covers healthcare, so do income and sales taxes. People who are penalised for eating in a way that is discouraged will be irritated because, getting back to the first paragraph of this rebuttal, you are meddling with their private affairs. Also, it does not need to be a flat tax. It could be done on a geometric scale, for instance. So a small slice of pie would be taxed at say 1% while dangerous excesses like a mega-huge burger would be taxed at the full rate. Or it could be done as the Forbes article suggested, where people are given a monetary reward for keeping weight off. Again, stop meddling. At this point you're just fucking with people. Here's a question. Are you my father? My mother? So why should you be trying to discourage my eating habits when you're a complete stranger who has no authority over me? Because of the blanket statement of "it helps pay for healthcare?" I call bullshit because people pay for their own healthcare, so you're making them pay twice. Why don't you just admit what is on your mind: you find obese or fat people ugly and think of this as a way to make a segment of the population thinner for your benefit. Side: NO! What the heck?
"it is a norm that we do not impose our whims upon others without their permission" Ok, I'll agree with that. I'm arguing that we should adjust that norm slightly. We should recognize that humans are fallible and construct systems which guide us toward taking actions that will make us best off. We should also recognize that such systems can sometimes fail, so it should be reasonably easy to "override" the system and do what you want. Again, nudging. "Improving a society doesn't work well when done from the top down." I agree that it usually doesn't, but sometimes it's the only way. We both agree that people will often take actions that forward their own self-interest at the expense of the interests of the group, right? Either out of selfishness or stupidity or being forced to by the "rules of the game". And no amount of bottom-up persuasion is going to change this. Sometimes a top down approach is the only way to address a problem. Sometimes government action is appropriate, despite its shortcomings, because doing nothing would be even worse. "shape government so that it becomes slowly more authoritarian" No, I just want to move the line slightly. Again, there's no slippery slope. "the differences ultimately rely on premises which are based upon nothing more than values" We should maximize positive feelings. That's not a personal value, it's a universal truth. "Your reasoning is inclusive of all those regulations." To take one example: "you encounter carcinogens from burnt or browned foods". In deciding how to respond we would need to look at several things: How serious of a threat is this? Do people often eat burned food? Is there a way to discourage them from doing so that doesn't meddle too greatly in their lives? I think the answers are: not very, no, and no. Maybe if this is a serious problem we should have some public education effort. But I don't see an easy way to discourage the consumption of burned foods. I really hope you don't want to walk through each case. The core question is: all things considered, would a given regulation do more good or harm? "your reasoning leads to an authoritarian government" No, my reasoning leads to a soft-paternalistic government. "What happens is that small bills are passed that gradually restrict more and more activities that we take for granted until there are no activities left that are unregulated." Where does that actually happen? Libertarian fantasy land? Are you talking about totalitarian governments like China? Because I don't think there was any slippery slope paternalism there -- there was violent revolution and rigid controls established thereafter to maintain power. It's a completely different situation from the United States. Our values would protect us from falling into some kind of dystopian totalitarian society. "Wrong and wrong. Insurance covers healthcare, so do income and sales taxes." What? Do you not understand that insurance is paid for by a group? That if people consumed less fat premiums for the whole group would go down? Do you not understand the concept of supply and demand? "People who are penalised for eating in a way that is discouraged will be irritated..." They will be happier in the long run. Here's a citation to support that claim: "our data reveal that...happiness and mental health are worse among fatter people in both Britain and Germany" http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ "why should you be trying to discourage my eating habits" Because doing so will make us both better off. "you find obese or fat people ugly and think of this as a way to make a segment of the population thinner for your benefit" Always so eager to assume bad faith. I don't think fat people are especially ugly. When I look at an exceptionally fat person the visceral sense I get is closer to amazement then revulsion. No, I'm just following a simple rule to the best of my limited ability: maximize positive feelings. Side: Yes, they should
I'm getting sort of tired of this subject because it is not a decisive issue with a single clear-cut answer that can be objectively demonstrated. I'm most at home with debates that can be settled clearly instead of becoming a matter of personal values. So I'll try a different angle this time around. Since this issue boils down to values, which as I said before I hate because it means no one is right or wrong, I'll tell you those of mine which are pertinent. I believe in personal liberty and personal responsibility. I also believe that the social contract between the government and the governed is that the government regulates the governed according to their interests. It is therefore an affront to me when officials regulate my behaviour against my wishes with no well-justified basis. The more I am regulated against my wishes, for arbitrary reasons, the less I find the need to respect my social contract with my government. In other words, if my interests are mostly not being served or compromised with by my government, then I do not consider it my government any longer, but instead an entity which owns me. Presently we have insurance which covers medical expenses, and we have state insurance which is supported by taxes. This makes two systems that we are paying for in order to support healthcare. Our society is presently one of compromises, ideally it must be one where the individual's freedoms are above state meddling but years of reforms and compromises have made it fuzzy between a nanny state and free state. This is the point where I must remind you about my earlier comment about the governed's interests versus the government. If the government starts to impose a state that flagrantly violates the social contract I described, then the people are justified in seeking revolution, to replace the government with one that suits their interests. Now let's get back to the main topic. You want foods that are fatty to be taxed in order to make society healthy. In this case you would be imposing regulations that are discriminatory (because your regulations are not consistent, arbitrarily targeting a specific unhealthy part of life), that are coercive (because they try to regulate behaviour in a way that forces people to buy less or none at all in tight income situations), that are redundant (we already pay for our healthcare twice), and that are ineffective (you know as well as I do that people will still eat sweets, and more importantly will not simply jump onto the healthy food bandwagon). In this respect you are imposing regulations that flagrantly violate my interests, and even though rationally speaking it is small in its scope, it is still imposing someone else's interests upon my personal space. We also know from history that regulations grow typically, instead of receding, so it just means we should expect even more arbitrary regulations by well-meaning but disrespectful individuals. Where does that actually happen? Libertarian fantasy land? Are you talking about totalitarian governments like China? Because I don't think there was any slippery slope paternalism there -- there was violent revolution and rigid controls established thereafter to maintain power. It's a completely different situation from the United States. Our values would protect us from falling into some kind of dystopian totalitarian society. Examples: You used to be able to buy handguns and rifles easily. Then certain guns were made illegal. Then certain guns required a background check. Then databases were made to tie guns to owners. Buying alcohol was easy, then prohibitions were passed then repealed, then state regulation of alcohol lead to taxes and requiring licenses. Minimum ages were mandated, and now you can't buy pure ethanol at a local store without it being tainted by methanol, to avoid alcohol regulations. The internet used to be unregulated until copyrighted works were being transmitted, then acts were passed that made it easier to fine infringers. Then the DMCA was passed, allowing for cease and desist letters, then ACTA which mandates ISPs filter content. Free speech used to be less encumbered but then certain groups disapproved of certain things being said, ranging from religious groups to special rights groups. Political correctness emerged, and now you have to monitor yourself. People hate to just be left alone to their own choices, regulation seems inevitable. What? Do you not understand that insurance is paid for by a group? That if people consumed less fat premiums for the whole group would go down? Do you not understand the concept of supply and demand? No, they wouldn't go down because taxing fatty foods wouldn't make the population thin, and this misses the fact that even if the premiums went down, it's a subsidised reduction because you're paying for it to go down with taxes. No, my reasoning leads to a soft-paternalistic government. Which is under the umbrella of authoritarian. Side: NO! What the heck?
Again, this is not a question of values. Unless by values you mean "judgment about what will make people happiest in the long-run". And even if that's what you mean, I think it's pretty clear that an economic incentive is the best way to do that. Again, "one should maximize happiness" is not a value statement, but a universal truth that follows logically from the phenomenon of sentience. You say you beleive in personal liberty and personal responsiblity. You've said that before. But you have yet to specify why those things are so sacred. You just kind of wave your hands and say something about government and social contracts. I don't think the social contract you describe actually exists. I don't believe there is any explicit document or implicit societal value that says government cannot violate the short-term interests of its citizens when doing so will make everyone better off. And even if there were such a thing, why can't we adjust this contract? Set some new rules. Say, government can violate the short-term interests of its people if and only if it is in the long-term best interests of the governed. Actually, now that I've written that, I think it's clear that most people would view that as the proper role of government (with a few caveats). As I have said before, liberty is important because it generally leads to greater happiness. This statement, however, demonstrates that it is logical to infringe upon it when a greater amount of happiness will result. "arbitrary reasons" I don't understand why you insist on calling lower healthcare costs and greater long term personal happiness arbitrary reasons. They seem to me to follow inescapably from basic fundamental facts, which makes them the opposite of arbitrary. "discriminatory...coercive...redundant. Ok, I'll give you discriminatory, I guess. What's wrong with that exactly? Traffic laws discriminate against people who drive cars. As for coercion, we've been over this: coercion is not binary, but rather a gradient. And again, why is coercion always wrong? Do you see it as justified in any situation? Why? Redundant doesn't even make sense. We pay for health insurance therefore we shouldn't pay a fat tax to make healthcare costs go down. It's a non-sequitir. The fact that we pay for health insurance has no impact on whether we should take action to decrease healthcare costs. You seem to be contradicting yourself by calling it both coercive and ineffective. But of course it would be effective. The more you raise the price of something, the less of it people buy. This is a basic economic principle. "violate my interests" Again you are failing to distinguish between short-term and long-term interests. If everyone ate less fat, your insurance premiums would drop. If this tax helped keep you from getting fat, then you would be happier in the long-term. You point out some example of expanding regulations. I will admit that it seems regulations do tend to grow over time. But not always -- a few counter-examples: the deregulation of the financial industry in the latter half of the 19th century, the repeal of prohibition (as you said), the gradual decriminilazation of drugs around the world. I think this is evidence of society's ability to draw and redraw lines as times change and we learn more about the world. People don't vote for these laws for arbitrary reasons, there is almost always a compelling case to be made for them. There is certainly a strong case to be made for control of guns and alcohol. Controlling media piracy is important for the economy. "taxing fatty foods wouldn't make the population thin" Taxing foods that make people fat would lead to people consuming less of them, which would lead to people becoming less fat. I can't see any way for you to rationally deny this. "you're paying for it to go down with taxes" It's not a one to one relationship. A small tax deterrant can lead to much larger savings. "Which is under the umbrella of authoritarian." Yes but words become less useful as they become less precise. Equating an economic incentive with slavery serves no purpose other than making discussion more difficult. Side: Yes, they should
Again, this is not a question of values. Unless by values you mean "judgment about what will make people happiest in the long-run". And even if that's what you mean, I think it's pretty clear that an economic incentive is the best way to do that. Again, "one should maximize happiness" is not a value statement, but a universal truth that follows logically from the phenomenon of sentience. These are all values, with no objectivity in them. If you aren't aware of this, then you're making the same mistake as the local preacher who thinks that he is operating from a universal truth when he preaches biblical morality. Maximising happiness is merely a philosophy that has no more objective merit than maximising pleasure, or maximising productivity, or maximising physical strength. You can measure the efficacy of your system in response to that philosophy and obtain an objective measurement, but that doesn't make the philosophy any more true or valuable than the other philosophies in my list. They are all human inventions that the universe doesn't care about. You say you beleive in personal liberty and personal responsiblity. You've said that before. But you have yet to specify why those things are so sacred. You just kind of wave your hands and say something about government and social contracts. I don't think the social contract you describe actually exists. I believe I have explained this already several times. It is a matter of having right over your own body and property. An authoritarian government infringes upon these rights, making you lose fundamental sovereignty over your own body and property and effectively being possessed by the state. Does that clear things up for you? This is a matter of being your own individual, or being the state's individual. It is a matter of being in a state of independent citizens, or being in a state where the government owns the citizens. The spectrum of this ranges from free societies like the Nordic ones in northern Europe towards ours, then you get governments like Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and China, who effectively own their citizens in varying degrees. I don't believe there is any explicit document or implicit societal value that says government cannot violate the short-term interests of its citizens when doing so will make everyone better off. And even if there were such a thing, why can't we adjust this contract? Set some new rules. Say, government can violate the short-term interests of its people if and only if it is in the long-term best interests of the governed. These are intrinsic properties of human culture, they are part of the unwritten ruleset, the mores, norms and folkways that define a particular culture from another. As I stated previously, these norms have been changed and violated, and it frequently leads towards a further controlled population, with the end being an authoritarian government like those I already listed. Saudi Arabia for example violates many of its citizen's short term interests for the long term interest being "Heaven." China violates short term interests with the long term being "peace" and "social harmony." I frankly don't understand why you automatically seek more government to fix a problem. You haven't given a cogent argument for why we need to always involve the government in our personal affairs. Is it a matter of comfort towards authority with you? Were you the child who often reported to his teachers and parents when a problem happened? What is your need to involve law into personal affairs? I don't understand why you insist on calling lower healthcare costs and greater long term personal happiness arbitrary reasons. They seem to me to follow inescapably from basic fundamental facts, which makes them the opposite of arbitrary. First, you never validated your belief that there would be lower healthcare costs (we all pay for healthcare already, remember? Taxing foods and using the money for healthcare isn't lowering the costs, it's subsidizing the insurance industry). Second, your decision is arbitrary because you created an ambiguous standard that applies to all sorts of foods and food preparation methods but of all those things to choose from you only picked fatty foods. This is the definition of arbitrary, to pick something from a set randomly. In you case the set is all those other foods that are unhealthy. Ok, I'll give you discriminatory, I guess. What's wrong with that exactly? Traffic laws discriminate against people who drive cars. As for coercion, we've been over this: coercion is not binary, but rather a gradient. And again, why is coercion always wrong? Do you see it as justified in any situation? Why? Redundant doesn't even make sense. We pay for health insurance therefore we shouldn't pay a fat tax to make healthcare costs go down. It's a non-sequitir. The fact that we pay for health insurance has no impact on whether we should take action to decrease healthcare costs. You seem to be contradicting yourself by calling it both coercive and ineffective. But of course it would be effective. The more you raise the price of something, the less of it people buy. This is a basic economic principle. Discrimination is wrong because out of a huge list of types of food you would impose a tax on, that fall under your vague criteria, you only chose fatty foods, meaning you're targeting a specific segment of the population for no reason. This brings us back to the buggery laws, these laws existed to promote morality (another vague set of criteria) but only targeted homosexuals (the laws could have targeted a whole set of OTHER immoral acts, but only set sights on those acts which the homosexual portion of the population performed). You're doing the same thing, targeting those of us who eat sweet foods, when sweets are only a tiny subset of unhealthy foods. Coercion is not justified in PERSONAL AFFAIRS. See: buggery laws, prohibition, obscenity laws, blasphemy laws, etc. IT DOESN'T DECREASE HEALTHCARE COSTS because you're taking tax money and using that to subsidize the insurance costs. Does that not compute with you? You are merely reallocating costs from one bill onto another. Socialised medicine, for example, isn't automatically cheaper because it is free. Everyone pays taxes so that it can exist. What do you think will happen? Suddenly everyone will become thin and obesity premiums will vanish? It doesn't work that way. All you're doing now is making everyone pay another bill linked with healthcare, on top of their insurance premiums, a double bill. That is why it is redundant. It's ineffective because there will still be obesity, it's coercive because you're trying to make people not buy a food product. This is like the gun control laws, they are completely ineffective in preventing gun violence, yet they make it more and more of a headache to buy a rifle or handgun. In both cases the laws highlight a failed understanding of the intersection between human psychology and the law enforcement process. If everyone ate less fat, your insurance premiums would drop. If this tax helped keep you from getting fat, then you would be happier in the long-term. Which isn't your prerogative. This is what grates on my nerves the most. When a guy sitting in his chair a thousand miles away has some sort of personal issue against action X, and bothers to push for laws being passed so that suddenly I have to be told how to live by someone I don't even know who never learned those four little words "mind your own business." Of course this all ignores the single largest failure in your reasoning. You don't know what will make me happy in the long run, neither do you know what will make the population happier in the long run. You can't even claim to know. Being thin doesn't make everyone happy, some people like being fat, or average or plump. People are more complicated than you seem to know. Why am I the one here telling you this? It's obvious to anyone who's experienced even a tiny bit of life and diversity. How would you like it if a religious group believed that simply attending church made people happy, and sought to tax people who didn't attend church in order to coax them into it? Their reasoning is exactly like yours "The short-term interests ought to be ignored to promote the long term interests of a happier society." Taxing foods that make people fat would lead to people consuming less of them, which would lead to people becoming less fat. I can't see any way for you to rationally deny this. Expand your vision a little. See: cigarettes and tobacco, alcohol, CD media, imported (tariff) goods. Something in high demand is that way irregardless of cost. Sweet foods and related will always remain in high consumption. It's not a one to one relationship. A small tax deterrant can lead to much larger savings. Except it won't. Get back into reality. Yes but words become less useful as they become less precise. Equating an economic incentive with slavery serves no purpose other than making discussion more difficult. Except I'm not. Authoritarian works fine. Side: NO! What the heck?
First, let's get the facts straight: http://www.urban.org/publications/ "A 10 percent tax on fattening food, identified based on a model used by the British government to determine the foods that may not be advertised to children, would reduce consumption while raising more than $500 billion over 10 years." "obesity and excess weight reduce the productivity of American industry and cause over $200 billion in annual health care spending, half of which is funded by the taxpayers" $200 billion times 10 years = $2 trillion. So society ends up collectively paying $500 billion and ends up collectively saving $1.5 trillion. And that's without even accounting for lost productivity and the lower levels of happiness in obese people (see my earlier citation for proof of the happiness claim). Now then... "These are all values, with no objectivity in them." All sentient beings experience good and bad sensations; they are ultimately what motivates action. These feelings are manifestations of neural activity. They have an objective root. They are real. Why don't you kill yourself? Presumably because you don't want to. Because you want to enjoy life. By not killing yourself you are implying that your own happiness matters. And if you accept that your own happiness matters then you must accept that other people's happiness matters as well. And then we can see that the maximization of happiness is... let's call it a universally shared value -- universal to all sentient beings (with exceptions for cases of extreme mental illness). 1) We have the capacity to experience positive feelings. 2) These feelings are inherently good. 3) If something is good it should be maximized. "It is a matter of having right over your own body and property." So you're saying: 1) Government does not have the right to infringe upon one's liberty. 2) These rights come from cultural values. 3) Challenging these values will erode them. 4) Once these values are gone government will be able to infringe upon liberty without restraint. The main problem with your reasoning is that you're assuming that liberty is more important than happiness. But it's not. It's just a means to an end. "I frankly don't understand why you automatically seek more government to fix a problem." I don't think government is always the best solution. It's just one of many tools we can use to address a given problem. In this case, I think government is the best tool for the job. "sweets are only a tiny subset of unhealthy foods" Ok, so lets apply the same logic to all unhealthy foods for which an economic incentive will almost certainly yield more benefit than cost. There, it's no longer discriminatory, right? "Coercion is not justified in PERSONAL AFFAIRS." So where's the line between personal and non-personal affairs? If your obesity raises the amount everyone else has to pay for healthcare, then it's not a purely personal affair. "IT DOESN'T DECREASE HEALTHCARE COSTS" It does, see above. "It's ineffective" Not true, see above. "You don't know what will make me happy in the long run, neither do you know what will make the population happier in the long run." There is a clear relationship between obesity and happiness. I'm sorry, but to deny this is to deny reality. See my previous citation. "How would you like it if a religious group believed that simply attending church made people happy, and sought to tax people who didn't attend church in order to coax them into it?" The difference is that their reasoning is based on invalid premises. Mine is not. "cigarettes and tobacco, alcohol, CD media, imported (tariff) goods" Increasing the cost of obtaining any of those things would make their consumption levels go down. You're simply denying reality at this ponit. Side: Yes, they should
First, let's get the facts straight: http://www.urban.org/publications/ "A 10 percent tax on fattening food, identified based on a model used by the British government to determine the foods that may not be advertised to children, would reduce consumption while raising more than $500 billion over 10 years." All I'm reading is that no real-world data exists. I don't care about models because they are notoriously wrong when it comes to legislation. So society ends up collectively paying $500 billion and ends up collectively saving $1.5 trillion. And that's without even accounting for lost productivity and the lower levels of happiness in obese people (see my earlier citation for proof of the happiness claim). Now then... Good. You confirmed my long-held suspicion that your attempt to appear rational and logical was a façade for the selfish reason of not wanting to pay a share of healthcare taxes that are used by obese people. All sentient beings experience good and bad sensations; they are ultimately what motivates action. These feelings are manifestations of neural activity. They have an objective root. They are real. Being real doesn't make something objective. An objective thing can be measured across all perspectives and have the same value. Your sense of happiness being the most important thing is not based on objective reality because happiness is not a tangible thing that exists in the universe for it to care about, happiness is not uniform for everybody, happiness relies instead upon person preferences which belongs to the subjective realm, like beauty or taste or smell. Why don't you kill yourself? Presumably because you don't want to. Because you want to enjoy life. By not killing yourself you are implying that your own happiness matters. And if you accept that your own happiness matters then you must accept that other people's happiness matters as well. And then we can see that the maximization of happiness is... let's call it a universally shared value -- universal to all sentient beings (with exceptions for cases of extreme mental illness). Let me try a word substitution for you: Why don't you kill yourself? Presumably because you don't want to. Because you want to enjoy beauty. By not killing yourself you are implying that beauty matters. And if you accept that beauty matters then you must accept that other people want beauty as well. And then we can see that the maximization of beauty is... let's call it a universally shared value -- universal to all sentient beings (with exceptions for cases of extreme mental illness). Why don't you kill yourself? Presumably because you don't want to. Because you want to be productive. By not killing yourself you are implying that your productivity matters. And if you accept that your productivity matters then you must accept that other people's productivity matters as well. And then we can see that the maximization of productivity is... let's call it a universally shared value -- universal to all sentient beings (with exceptions for cases of extreme mental illness). Your value of "happiness" as a criterion to select for is subjective, one of many possibilities. 1) We have the capacity to experience positive feelings. 2) These feelings are inherently good. 3) If something is good it should be maximized. Word substitution again: 1) We have the capacity to experience beauty. 2) This experience is inherently good. 3) If something is good it should be maximized. 1) We have the capacity to be productive. 2) This capacity is inherently good. 3) If something is good it should be maximized. So you're saying: 1) Government does not have the right to infringe upon one's liberty. 2) These rights come from cultural values. 3) Challenging these values will erode them. 4) Once these values are gone government will be able to infringe upon liberty without restraint. The main problem with your reasoning is that you're assuming that liberty is more important than happiness. But it's not. It's just a means to an end. Liberty is a means to happiness. It cannot be granted by someone who thinks they know what's best for you. Do you know how frustrating it is to be told by someone who is only half as intelligent as you that they know what's in your best future interests to make you happy? Now imagine that there is an entire country of cretinous lawmakers and courts and markets all telling you that THEY know better than YOU how you ought to live, as if it is their right to enter your life and impose their lifestyle upon you because they think lifestyle A is the only way to be happy. Giving people full reign on their lives allows them to grow and choose what fits them. Not everyone will be able to make their lives work, but I would never trust a government, which is entirely uplifted and detached from personal affairs, to dictate how people should live in order to be happy. I don't think government is always the best solution. It's just one of many tools we can use to address a given problem. In this case, I think government is the best tool for the job. I told you at least three times before: talk to people around you and convince them to live in a way that you think will make them happy. Ok, so lets apply the same logic to all unhealthy foods for which an economic incentive will almost certainly yield more benefit than cost. There, it's no longer discriminatory, right? It still isn't right because your reasoning is based upon subjective values and it causes animosity. Now you're just overcompensating for something that originally started out of selfishness (you didn't want to pay healthcare costs for obese people) and evolved into a detached rationalism ("happiness" is the best value). So where's the line between personal and non-personal affairs? If your obesity raises the amount everyone else has to pay for healthcare, then it's not a purely personal affair. You already know the answer and line to my statement "Coercion is not justified in PERSONAL AFFAIRS." You're not stupid, it's frankly common sense. People pay for each other all the time. Your tax dollars support roads and utilities that you'll never use, because they're part of a city area you never even visit. You pay for healthcare that supports people who have cancer, amputations, heart attacks, dementia, and so on. Should there be a cancer tax now, too? Maybe we should tax cell phones, power lines, and every single mutagenic chemical because these cancer patients are a strain on your tax dollars. Dementia is supported by your tax dollars, and it's a huge problem because so many old people are living thanks to medicine, now brain disorders are what plagues them. It's also a statistical fact that people who study more than one language and use it throughout their lives tend to get certain types of dementia at later ages. Should we tax monolingual individuals? Everybody's dollars are being distributed to support each other in some way, you just need to accept it and stop focusing your attention on only a mere subset of those being assisted. There is a clear relationship between obesity and happiness. I'm sorry, but to deny this is to deny reality. See my previous citation. Now you're just being foolish. Come on, I know you're smarter than this. Repeat with me: "Statistics don't matter for the individual. They characterize a population." You have no right to tell someone that they are unhappy because of a statistic you read. You have no right to assume that a subset of people are unhappy because of that statistic. Gay people statistically commit suicide more often than their straight peers. Are you going to suddenly tell me that gay people are unhappy and to deny it is to deny reality? Are you going to walk up to a gay person and assume he's suicidal? http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ Muslims commit more terrorism than any other religion presently. Are you going to assume that your Muslim neighbours are suicide bombers? The difference is that their reasoning is based on invalid premises. Mine is not. You don't know that. You just assume. It's actually a valid premise, because social lives and belonging to groups makes people happy and church provides this. http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/ Look at that. Being strongly religious is associated with less depression, and strong atheism is too. Maybe the church idea is valid after all, because it means it might snag up some more strong followers. Increasing the cost of obtaining any of those things would make their consumption levels go down. You're simply denying reality at this ponit. Except it hasn't. Smokers are still commonplace, imported goods are everywhere, and CD media had a golden age of mass consumption before the DVD hit, despite being taxed. Side: NO! What the heck?
"I don't care about models because they are notoriously wrong when it comes to legislation." I'd like to see some evidence that "models are notoriously wrong". That seems like a pretty outlandish claim. Surely you'll agree that dispassionate study is more likely to reflect reality than common sense or intuition? "your attempt to appear rational and logical was a façade for the selfish reason of not wanting to pay a share of healthcare taxes that are used by obese people." Wanting to pay less taxes is logical. And I'm thinking about all members of society, not just myself. Why is it so hard for you to assume good faith? "Being real doesn't make something objective." You are right that happiness is not objectively good -- there's no such thing as objectively good. But it is subjectively good. Therefore my claim that "happiness is inherently good" still stands. "word substitution" I don't really see the point here. Experiencing beauty is just another kind of positive emotion. And I'm using the word "happiness" to mean positive emotions. So enjoying beauty is just one kind of happiness. As for "productive", I think it's clear that productivity is a means for acheiving happiness. It's not inherently good. "Do you know how frustrating it is to be told by someone who is only half as intelligent as you that they know what's in your best future interests to make you happy?" How smart they are is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is: are they right? And to evaluate that we need to look at the facts and the logic. And where do you think your frusteration is coming from? It's just your selfish genes talking. They want to be free to perpetuate themselves, so they rage against anything that would repress them to any degree. But they're dumb. As humans we are capable of putting aside our base instincts and thinking about what we really want, and how we can best get there. "Now imagine that there is an entire country of cretinous lawmakers and courts and markets all telling you that THEY know better than YOU how you ought to live" Again, it would come down to one question: Are they correct? "Giving people full reign on their lives allows them to grow and choose what fits them." And allows them to fuck things up for everybody else. "I told you at least three times before: talk to people around you and convince them to live in a way that you think will make them happy." And I responded at least three times: there is a limit to what can be acheived without coercion. People are very often lazy and stupid and operating under severe cognitive biases. Sometimes they are compelled by circumstances to behave in a way that makes the whole worse off; see Nash equilibrium. "It still isn't right because your reasoning is based upon subjective values and it causes animosity." Why is it wrong to base reasoning on subjective values, if they are universally shared? I agree that it may cause a degree of animosity. But that would just be typical grumbling that comes from being compelled. People would get over it pretty quick and things would work out for the best. "Maybe we should tax cell phones, power lines, and every single mutagenic chemical because these cancer patients are a strain on your tax dollars." Cell phones and power lines hold great utility. Fatty foods hold comparatively little. As for mutagenic chemicals, maybe they should be taxed. Again, it all comes down to cost-benefit analysis. "Should we tax monolingual individuals?" We'd need to study the costs and benefits of such a tax before drawing conclusions. "Everybody's dollars are being distributed to support each other in some way" If that's true then doesn't that mean there's no such thing as a purely personal affair? I think I have still not gotten a clear answer from you with regard to when coercion is appropriate. Saying "it's common sense" is not a clear answer. "Statistics don't matter for the individual. They characterize a population." Right, but I don't see any way to target individuals effectively. Maybe dropping a bomb will cause some collateral damage -- but the question is: will the benefits outweigh the costs? "You have no right to tell someone that they are unhappy because of a statistic you read." I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's more likely that an obese person is less happy. I'm sorry, but that's just what the data show. "social lives and belonging to groups makes people happy and church provides this" I agree with that. I think non-believers ought to have some alternative institution. "Smokers are still commonplace, imported goods are everywhere, and CD media had a golden age of mass consumption before the DVD hit, despite being taxed." Smoking rates have dropped considerably due to taxes. The Urban article mentions this. Demand follows a curved distribution so it makes sense that you can get a large number of people to abstain at relatively little cost, while the long-tail of hardcore demanders will pay a higher price. I gotta say, I'm pretty incredulous at your denial of such basic economic truths. Side: Yes, they should
I'd like to see some evidence that "models are notoriously wrong". That seems like a pretty outlandish claim. Surely you'll agree that dispassionate study is more likely to reflect reality than common sense or intuition? If you're going to argue a point, use empirical data, not someone's pet model. Wanting to pay less taxes is logical. And I'm thinking about all members of society, not just myself. Why is it so hard for you to assume good faith? Good faith doesn't exist, and your motives are selfish. Don't try and cover yourself with a cloak of rationality and logic. A rational person would see that he is targeting a group of people without consistency, and only leaving himself open to ridicule. You are right that happiness is not objectively good -- there's no such thing as objectively good. But it is subjectively good. Therefore my claim that "happiness is inherently good" still stands. Your claim was that it is a universal truth. But it is a subjective value system that is by no means universal. Once you have accepted this you will see that it is merely you forcing your tastes upon everyone else under the banner of knowing what's best for them, when your concept of what makes people happy and therefore "what is best" is purely your preference, of no more worth than my preference for reading a book every day and choosing to impose that value upon society with law. In other words the debate is over. You lost your critical footing you needed to assert that happiness is somehow a universal truth of the human condition, when it was made clear that happiness to you is only what makes YOU happy with no regard for everyone else's concept of "happy" and further it was shown that your desire to put happiness at the apex of priorities has no more objective merit than placing productivity or beauty at the apex of priorities. I don't really see the point here. Experiencing beauty is just another kind of positive emotion. And I'm using the word "happiness" to mean positive emotions. So enjoying beauty is just one kind of happiness. As for "productive", I think it's clear that productivity is a means for acheiving happiness. It's not inherently good. Word substitution shows that your argument for happiness as the most important concern for society applies equally to beauty and productivity. How smart they are is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is: are they right? And to evaluate that we need to look at the facts and the logic. It matters when that person claims to know what's best for you, yet isn't even on your level and can't possibly understand what would satisfy your needs. And where do you think your frusteration is coming from? It's just your selfish genes talking. They want to be free to perpetuate themselves, so they rage against anything that would repress them to any degree. But they're dumb. As humans we are capable of putting aside our base instincts and thinking about what we really want, and how we can best get there. All I read is "I need to impose my values on you but have no justification for doing so." And allows them to fuck things up for everybody else. Which is when the law steps in. And I responded at least three times: there is a limit to what can be acheived without coercion. People are very often lazy and stupid and operating under severe cognitive biases. Sometimes they are compelled by circumstances to behave in a way that makes the whole worse off; see Nash equilibrium. And so I'm supposed to listen to an armchair dictator for what values society must embrace to be better? Let me guess, society must be a majority of thin, rational, liberal, vegetarian atheists to be your utopia. A planet of hats in other words. Societies require the freedom for personal growth to be healthy, repressive societies that think for their citizens, like you want, always cause suffering, without exception. Why is it wrong to base reasoning on subjective values, if they are universally shared? I agree that it may cause a degree of animosity. But that would just be typical grumbling that comes from being compelled. People would get over it pretty quick and things would work out for the best. Subjective values are not universally shared. That is why they are subjective. Try living in a society that chooses the subjective value that Religion A is good for everyone, with the long term interest that society will go to heaven and earn divine praise. The leaders think "you'll get over it." Right, but I don't see any way to target individuals effectively. Maybe dropping a bomb will cause some collateral damage -- but the question is: will the benefits outweigh the costs? Talk to them. Start a campaign. I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's more likely that an obese person is less happy. I'm sorry, but that's just what the data show. It's also more likely that a gay guy is suicidal, but you won't go up to one and assume he is suicidal. Smoking rates have dropped considerably due to taxes. The Urban article mentions this. Demand follows a curved distribution so it makes sense that you can get a large number of people to abstain at relatively little cost, while the long-tail of hardcore demanders will pay a higher price. I gotta say, I'm pretty incredulous at your denial of such basic economic truths. I'm incredulous at your obliviousness to how unaffective these taxes are. If you choose to debate further, realise that your central premise is untenable now. Happiness as an operating motive to pass laws is invalid because everybody is made happy by conflicting things. Try something else. Side: NO! What the heck?
"someone's pet model" Someone's pet model? This is the Urban Institute we're talking about. They are qualified, cautious experts. They're non-partisan. If you read the report, you'll see it's based on solid research. What's the problem here? The only reason I can think of for you to deny these claims is that you don't want them true. And if you're going to refuse to even consider the opinion of experts then I'm afraid we're not going to be able to move forward here. "Good faith doesn't exist" What? You're saying it's impossible to trust people? "your motives are selfish...targeting a group of people without consistency" Targeting people without consistency does not imply selfishness. And whether or not my motives are selfish says nothing about whether my arguments are sound. "But it is a subjective value system that is by no means universal." Show me a sentient being that doesn't want to be happy. It's a contradiction in terms. Evolution has shaped us to appreciate certain sensations. "what makes YOU happy with no regard for everyone else's concept of "happy"" People enjoy different things, yes. That doesn't challenge the underlying principle that happiness is inherently good. "Word substitution shows that your argument for happiness as the most important concern for society applies equally to beauty and productivity." No it doesn't. Experiencing beauty is a subset of happiness, so that one doesn't disprove anything. And when you subsitute "happiness" with "productivity", the words cease to be true, because productivity is not inherently good. Let's change the challenge slightly to make it more clear: Why don't you kill yourself? Presumably because you don't want to. This implies that you want something. If you want something, then to you, that something is inherently good. That something is what I'm referring to as happiness. "It matters when that person claims to know what's best for you, yet isn't even on your level and can't possibly understand what would satisfy your needs." If a retard tells you that 2+2=4, the fact that he's a retard doesn't change the fact that he's right. You're a human being, a creature of matter and energy, therefore it's by no means impossible to understand what would satisfy your needs. "Subjective values are not universally shared." They can be. If everybody values the same thing, then that value is by definition universal. "Talk to them. Start a campaign." They won't listen. They'll come up with bullshit objections like you're doing. "everybody is made happy by conflicting things" That doesn't change the fact that happiness is good. We want the greatest good for the greatest number. "I'm incredulous at your obliviousness to how unaffective these taxes are." Taxes have been proven to be effective at reducing consumption. See footnote 11 in the Urban article for proof of this claim. See also the first few pages of any high-school level economics textbook. Side: Yes, they should
I'm getting tired of bantering trivial details when the premise is rejected. You chose an entirely subjective criterion as a basis for your entire argument. You admitted that it was subjective. Your case is over because all you can do now is try to convince people why they should accept your lifestyle as a basis for making them happy. You can't argue a facts-based or evidence-based case because the same sort of evidence applies to lifestyle choices that you value and subjectively want to keep in spite of this. In other words, your decision to base an ultimate values system on a highly subjective criterion has backfired and forced you into inconsistency. Your remaining arguments are just a mix of special pleading, categorically wrong statements, and emotional pleas. Side: NO! What the heck?
What premise? That happiness is good? You're rejecting that? The fact that happiness is subjective is completely irrelevant. The key point is that the desire for it is universally shared. By the way, I don't like your use of the word "backfire". It implies that we're competing. A debate should be a cooperative endeavor to reconcile divergent world-views -- not an intellectual pissing contest. Side: Yes, they should
What premise? That happiness is good? You're rejecting that? The fact that happiness is subjective is completely irrelevant. The key point is that the desire for it is universally shared. That happiness is a universal truth that should be maximised. Major premise. That taxing fatty foods would ultimately lead to happiness. Minor premise. It doesn't matter whether or not most people search for happiness because they arrive at it in different ways, hence the subjectivity, which invalidates your minor premise and makes your major premise too ambiguous in its application if your true intent is to maximise happiness. By the way, I don't like your use of the word "backfire". It implies that we're competing. A debate should be a cooperative endeavor to reconcile divergent world-views -- not an intellectual pissing contest. Debates are competitive. That is their nature, discussions are cooperative. Not that I find the need to compete most of the time since these topics are comparatively simple to figure out. Side: NO! What the heck?
In most cases a certain thing will have the same effect on a large majority of people. Getting punched in the face, or being fat, for instance, generally lead to unhappiness. Being loved, or having low healthcare costs, on the other hand, generally lead to happiness. A mild economic incentive with regard to high fat foods would almost certainly lead to greater overall happiness. "Debates are competitive." It's the ideas that are supposed to compete. Not the people. You know what I mean. Side: Yes, they should
In most cases a certain thing will have the same effect on a large majority of people. Getting punched in the face, or being fat, for instance, generally lead to unhappiness. Being loved, or having low healthcare costs, on the other hand, generally lead to happiness. Do you see now what you're doing? Having cast away your pretence of logic and rationalism, and accepting the subjectivity of your reasoning, do you see now that you are making an argument that is a mere "I think I have a good lifestyle and others should emulate it?" You're like those purported gurus and lifecoaches who think they have in their possession the ultimate one-size-fits-all lifestyle that everyone can follow. The only difference between you and them is that you want to take it one step further and compel people to live your way, when there is no single lifestyle that fits everyone. A mild economic incentive with regard to high fat foods would almost certainly lead to greater overall happiness. The short answer is that you're a fool for persisting this long in an argument with invalidated premises. Your argument is as sound as saying that taxing salt would lead to greater health and therefore greater happiness. In other words it is a blanket argument that can fit anything and has no meaning. Do I really need to repeat this ad nauseum to you until you get it? A majority of people use and enjoy fatty foods. Your tax would upset the majority. There is no happiness in that. You also blindly assume that consumers of fatty foods are obese, which is wrong. You also think that everyone's goal in life is to be thin. This is wrong too, plenty of people enjoy different body types. Get over yourself. You don't know what's best for a population, you hardly have experienced any diversity to speak of, that's why you come off as a pompous fool who's never heard of a different perspective. Here's the clue you need: in subjective opinions like yours, there is no "best" and if you think there is, you're foolish. Side: NO! What the heck?
Subjectivty and logic are not mutually exclusive. Why should they be? It is subjectively true that I like ice cream. Therefore I should eat ice cream. It is subjectively true that if I gorge upon ice cream I'd get fat, which would in turn cause me to be less respected and would likely lead to health problems. It is subjectively true that the costs of gorging upon ice cream would outweigh the benefits, therefore I should limit my consumption of ice cream to a sensible quantity. It's objectively true that when it's very easy for anyone to gorge themselves on obesity causing foods, a lot of people will, thereby causing everyone's healthcare costs to increase. A tax on ice cream would likely help counteract my base temptation to consume excess quantities of it. It's subjectively true that I want to consume goods and services which I desire, and increasing healthcare costs will make me less able to do that. Further, dumping money into healthcare would depresses other areas of the economy. Looking at all of these facts logically (as well as others which I have stated previously, I can conclude that a tax on fattening foods would be good for me). I believe my viewpoint applies to a large majority of people. Therefore the utility in this legislation would be pretty big. There would also be negative consequences, of course, which you have largely spelled out. We have to make a judgment call as to which would lead to the greatest overall, combined happiness of everyone. (Where happiness means "fufillment of wants".) All sentient beings have wants. When a subjective principle holds true for everyone, it is, for all practical purposes, the same as objective truth. The fact that wants can conflict doesn't invalidate utilitarian logic -- it simply means some wants have to be sacrificed in order to satisfy other, greater wants. Again: the greatest good for the greatest number. I feel like I'm repeating myself here and you're just refusing to understand me. "Your argument is as sound as saying that taxing salt would lead to greater health and therefore greater happiness." It might. But I know of no studies which would support that claim. Unlike this case. "In other words it is a blanket argument that can fit anything and has no meaning." That's just not true. It only fits issues where we can make a reasonable guess as to the consequences of legislation. "Do I really need to repeat this ad nauseum to you until you get it?" You need to respond to my counter-arguments instead of repeating the same objections over and over. "Your tax would upset the majority. There is no happiness in that." In the short-term, in order to provide for their greater long-term happiness. We've been over this. "You also blindly assume that consumers of fatty foods are obese, which is wrong. You also think that everyone's goal in life is to be thin." I assume neither of those things. I merely judge that the positive consequences of this legislation would outweigh the negative. And again, the data shows that obese people, on average, are less happy than non-obese people. You seem to be studiously ignoring this point. Side: Yes, they should
Subjectivty and logic are not mutually exclusive. Why should they be? It is subjectively true that I like ice cream. Therefore I should eat ice cream. It is subjectively true that if I gorge upon ice cream I'd get fat, which would in turn cause me to be less respected and would likely lead to health problems. It is subjectively true that the costs of gorging upon ice cream would outweigh the benefits, therefore I should limit my consumption of ice cream to a sensible quantity. It's objectively true that when it's very easy for anyone to gorge themselves on obesity causing foods, a lot of people will, thereby causing everyone's healthcare costs to increase. A tax on ice cream would likely help counteract my base temptation to consume excess quantities of it. It's subjectively true that I want to consume goods and services which I desire, and increasing healthcare costs will make me less able to do that. Further, dumping money into healthcare would depresses other areas of the economy. Looking at all of these facts logically (as well as others which I have stated previously, I can conclude that a tax on fattening foods would be good for me). Did it ever occur to you to just concede and accept your mistake? You're beating a dead horse. I like bran flakes for breakfast. They have a lot of nutrients, are fibrous, and low in calories. Therefore I think that a tax should exist on all other breakfast items to reduce the temptation of people to eat anything other than bran flakes for breakfast. The tax would support healthcare for all the unhealthy non-bran flake eating people. This would also reduce healthcare costs in other areas. Replace bran flakes with apples, tofu, or anything else and you have your argument. It is essentially forcing a subjective lifestyle choice on others under the guise of logic. You're being very stubborn, or very dense. What bothers me is that you think you're perfectly justified in telling people that they ought to live like you. I believe my viewpoint applies to a large majority of people. Therefore the utility in this legislation would be pretty big. There would also be negative consequences, of course, which you have largely spelled out. We have to make a judgment call as to which would lead to the greatest overall, combined happiness of everyone. (Where happiness means "fufillment of wants".) I believe that the majority enjoys watching football. Therefore all other sports should be taxed to accommodate football. All sentient beings have wants. When a subjective principle holds true for everyone, it is, for all practical purposes, the same as objective truth. The fact that wants can conflict doesn't invalidate utilitarian logic -- it simply means some wants have to be sacrificed in order to satisfy other, greater wants. Again: the greatest good for the greatest number. I feel like I'm repeating myself here and you're just refusing to understand me. I believe I already told you: talk to people. You can satisfy both the long term good and short term good by talking to people, but not by forcing them into your lifestyle. It might. But I know of no studies which would support that claim. Unlike this case. You seem to be unable to accept natural logical implications. That's just not true. It only fits issues where we can make a reasonable guess as to the consequences of legislation. In other words anything. In the short-term, in order to provide for their greater long-term happiness. We've been over this. Which I already told you, you can't claim to know. You don't know what makes people happy. You assume that what makes you happy applies to everyone. It's not everyone's goal in life to be thin, you twit. I assume neither of those things. I merely judge that the positive consequences of this legislation would outweigh the negative. And again, the data shows that obese people, on average, are less happy than non-obese people. You seem to be studiously ignoring this point. I'll repeat myself since you didn't read what I typed: You also blindly assume that consumers of fatty foods are obese, which is wrong. You also think that everyone's goal in life is to be thin. Quit being a twit and acknowledge when you've lost the debate. Conceding an argument is not a bad thing, but persisting in a wrong position when it's been pointed out is. Side: NO! What the heck?
"I like bran flakes for breakfast. They have a lot of nutrients, are fibrous, and low in calories. Therefore I think that a tax should exist on all other breakfast items to reduce the temptation of people to eat anything other than bran flakes for breakfast." This is a strawman. It doesn't reflect my position. Because there are several things other healthy things one can eat besides bran flakes. "Replace bran flakes with apples, tofu, or anything else and you have your argument." No, replace them with an option between all of those things. Indeed all foods would remain untaxed except for the small set which fits these critera: 1) We can reasonably conclude that excess consumption of the food will lead to a decrease in overall happiness. 2) We can effectively reduce consumption of the food via taxation. "It is essentially forcing a subjective lifestyle choice on others under the guise of logic." Bran flakes being healthier than bacon and eggs is objectively true. Everybody eating bran flakes for breakfast instead of bacon and eggs would lead to lower health care costs. That is also objectively true. The fact that bacon and eggs is more likely to lead to obesity than bran flakes is objectively true. The fact that obese people generally report lower levels of happiness is objectively true. The fact that you find the notion of paternalism repugnant does not change those facts. And it's not forcing a lifestyle choice. It's nudging people toward a lifestyle choice. There's an important difference there that you would see if you didn't have your head so far up your ass. "What bothers me is that you think you're perfectly justified in telling people that they ought to live like you." That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they ought to live in a way that maximizes the overall happiness. "I believe that the majority enjoys watching football. Therefore all other sports should be taxed to accommodate football." If it were reasonable to conclude that such a tax would lead to a greater overall level of happiness then that would make sense. But that is not a reasonable conclusion. "I believe I already told you: talk to people." I've fucking responded to this objection over and over. Every time I respond, you ignore my response and repeat an earlier argument that I've already responded to. When I respond to those for the second time, you come back to this one, and when I respond to this one again, you go back to the others. Here is my response, one more time: People won't listen. Because people usually can't see past their selfish, short-term interests. You are providing us with an excellent example of this behavior. "You seem to be unable to accept natural logical implications." It's not that simple. Salt is an important preservative. It effects the body in different ways than obesity causing foods. I simply don't know enough about the health implications to draw a conclusion. Like I said: if a tax on salt would lead to greater overall happiness, then we should tax salt. "In other words anything." What the fuck? Issues where we can reasonably conclude that legislation would result in a greater overall level of happiness does not equal "anything". "You don't know what makes people happy." I do to a large extent. Most people have similar needs and desires, especially on a basic level. We can study, discuss, and come to reasonable conclusions about what makes people happy. "It's not everyone's goal in life to be thin, you twit." That's not what I fucking said you stupid son of a bitch. I've shown you what the data says. I've stated my position. I can't make myself any clearer. "I'll repeat myself since you didn't read what I typed" What part of this are you failing to comprehend? Yes, obviously, its possible for some guy to be hugely fat and perfectly happy. Yes, obviously, certain people can eat fatty foods without getting fat. However, it is generally true that obese people are less happy. It's generally true that excess consumption of fattening foods leads to obesity. It's generally true that obese people suck up a disproportionate amount of healthcare resources. It's generally true that having access to affordable healthcare makes people happy, or at least avoids huge amounts of unhappiness for the sick and injured. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that a minimally invasive economic incentive with regard to obesity inducing foods will lead to an increase in overall happiness. "Conceding an argument is not a bad thing, but persisting in a wrong position when it's been pointed out is." Perhaps you should take your own advice. If you're just going to repeat arguments that I've already responded to several times, then I'll just leave it at that. Side: Yes, they should
This is a strawman. It doesn't reflect my position. Because there are several things other healthy things one can eat besides bran flakes. It summarises your position. You can't denounce my summary without refuting your own reasoning. No, replace them with an option between all of those things. Indeed all foods would remain untaxed except for the small set which fits these critera: 1) We can reasonably conclude that excess consumption of the food will lead to a decrease in overall happiness. 2) We can effectively reduce consumption of the food via taxation. All I'm reading from you is a special pleading argument, and tenuous, vague selection criteria. Bran flakes being healthier than bacon and eggs is objectively true. Everybody eating bran flakes for breakfast instead of bacon and eggs would lead to lower health care costs. That is also objectively true. The fact that bacon and eggs is more likely to lead to obesity than bran flakes is objectively true. It doesn't matter whether bran flakes are healthier than eggs or bacon. It matters that you conflate "healthier" with "better" and therefore enter the realm of subjectivity. The fact that obese people generally report lower levels of happiness is objectively true. The fact that you find the notion of paternalism repugnant does not change those facts. Yet it didn't occur to you that what might make obese people unhappy are liberal douches who attack and mock them regularly throughout their lives. I can tell that you have a bullshit argument because you conspicuously avoid taking your reasoning to its logical ends, which would be an outright ban on all fatty foods, with a government mandated menu of food choices, along with a government sanctioned lifestyles list. This is what you're arguing for using your reasoning, but you avoid mentioning it because you set an arbitrary limit for how far your reasoning may go which has no logical basis, it's just preference. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they ought to live in a way that maximizes the overall happiness. Oh really? Because if I'm not mistaken, that's the system we already have. It's called freedom of choice and people live the way that makes them happy. If it were reasonable to conclude that such a tax would lead to a greater overall level of happiness then that would make sense. But that is not a reasonable conclusion. You're being intentionally dense. I've fucking responded to this objection over and over. Every time I respond, you ignore my response and repeat an earlier argument that I've already responded to. When I respond to those for the second time, you come back to this one, and when I respond to this one again, you go back to the others. Here is my response, one more time: People won't listen. Because people usually can't see past their selfish, short-term interests. You are providing us with an excellent example of this behavior. I'm waiting for you to repeat yourself enough that it sinks in on you what you're really saying. Would you like me to enlighten you a bit? People listen to you based upon how convincing you are. They listen to you based upon how much charisma you have. They listen to you based upon how reasonable your proposition is. All you've been answering me with is "People won't listen to me because they're too emotional." You aren't a very convincing person, because you are condescending, and you use bombastic language to cover up subjective reasoning. The first, and probably most important, rule in having debates with people over subjective topics (like how you ought to live) is that you must always remember: there is no "best" answer. Your lack of acceptance of this just makes you look silly, like you're trying all this time to say "Apples are the best fruit, because logic says so!" It's not that simple. Salt is an important preservative. It effects the body in different ways than obesity causing foods. I simply don't know enough about the health implications to draw a conclusion. Like I said: if a tax on salt would lead to greater overall happiness, then we should tax salt. Fattening foods are important to our culture. These extraneous details are irrelevant. The point is that both things can have deleterious effects on health and according to your reasoning should be taxed. What the fuck? Issues where we can reasonably conclude that legislation would result in a greater overall level of happiness does not equal "anything". Which applies to just about anything. Do you have trouble following your reasoning to its limits? I do to a large extent. Most people have similar needs and desires, especially on a basic level. We can study, discuss, and come to reasonable conclusions about what makes people happy. You really need to expose yourself to different cultures. Past the very basics, people can be very different in what makes them happy. Some fun examples are those who deny themselves pleasure as part of a spiritual trial, while others seek gratification in catching HIV at parties geared towards spreading that virus. That's not what I fucking said you stupid son of a bitch. I've shown you what the data says. I've stated my position. I can't make myself any clearer. Your argument is basically "I know that not EVERY obese person is depressed, but a large number are, therefore my tax proposal will make them happier in the long term, because they'll be thinner, because we need to focus on them while treating everyone else like them, which means pretending that everyone wants to lose weight because the tax applies to everyone." What part of this are you failing to comprehend? Yes, obviously, its possible for some guy to be hugely fat and perfectly happy. Yes, obviously, certain people can eat fatty foods without getting fat. However, it is generally true that obese people are less happy. It's generally true that excess consumption of fattening foods leads to obesity. It's generally true that obese people suck up a disproportionate amount of healthcare resources. It's generally true that having access to affordable healthcare makes people happy, or at least avoids huge amounts of unhappiness for the sick and injured. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that a minimally invasive economic incentive with regard to obesity inducing foods will lead to an increase in overall happiness. Taxes apply universally, to everyone, regardless of whether they are obese, thin, in the middle, etc. Therefore your tax idea treats everyone like they are obese and depressed. Perhaps you should take your own advice. If you're just going to repeat arguments that I've already responded to several times, then I'll just leave it at that. Wow. You really don't get it. Side: NO! What the heck?
"All I'm reading from you is a special pleading argument, and tenuous, vague selection criteria" There's no special pleading there. The criteria are neither tenuous nor vague. They are quite specific. It may be the case that measuring happiness precisely is outside our capabilities, but it is theoreticaly possible, and even without a precise measurement we can make reasonable estimations. "It matters that you conflate "healthier" with "better" and therefore enter the realm of subjectivity." Healthier is better. Healthier means lower health-care costs. Lower health-care costs mean we have more resources to devote toward satisfying our wants. Not being obese generally means greater personal happiness. Obviously, there are sacrifices that have to be made in order to be healthy, and we have to weigh those costs against the benefits. Yes, happiness is subjective. But this does not invalidate my argument, for reasons I have already elaborated on. "Yet it didn't occur to you that what might make obese people unhappy are liberal douches who attack and mock them regularly throughout their lives." Actually that's exactly where I suspect the unhappiness comes from. Except I would guess the problem comes from douches of all flavors, not just the liberal kind. Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that if they were not obese they would generally be happier. "you conspicuously avoid taking your reasoning to its logical ends, which would be an outright ban on all fatty foods," I can't believe I have to explicitly state such an obvious inference: An economic incentive has a relatively low cost/benefit ratio with respect to happiness. The cost of an outright ban would be much higher and you would get diminishing marginal returns. In other words, I'm not sure whether a ban would be worth it. I think the answer is, "probably not". "that's the system we already have. It's called freedom of choice and people live the way that makes them happy." You assume two huge things: that most people know what will make them happy and that they're capable of making the sacrifices necessary to obtain that happiness. If you think humans really operate this way then perhaps it is you who needs to obtain more experience in the real world. You have already agreed that freedom of choice is not absolute. You have already agreed that government should step in when people's actions start fucking things up for other people. Well that's precisely what fat people are doing by sucking up a disproportionate amount of the available healthcare resources. "You're being intentionally dense." No, I'm not. You're making invalid comparisons to avoid discussing the central point. Watching baseball instead of football doesn't lead to people being unable to get the healthcare they need. There is no clear evidence showing that people are happier if they watch football rather than baseball. The costs of such a tax would likely outweigh the benefits. "People listen to you based upon how convincing you are. They listen to you based upon how much charisma you have. They listen to you based upon how reasonable your proposition is." All of those things factor in. But you're missing what I would say is the largest factor in human decision making: "Is this relevant to my short-term interests? Will this cause my monkey-brain to release happy chemicals or restrict unhappy chemicals ASAP?" You can't get people to do shit if they don't want to do it. They'll just tell you to fuck off (or if they're less honest, they'll come up with some bullshit objection) unless you have the power to enforce your arguments. '"People won't listen to me because they're too emotional."' Well it's true. Although I would use the words "irrational", "stupid", and "blind" rather than "emotional". "there is no "best" answer" Not true. The best answer is the one that satisfies wants to the greatest degree. "Fattening foods are important to our culture. These extraneous details are irrelevant. The point is that both things can have deleterious effects on health and according to your reasoning should be taxed." Culture adapts to new social circumstances. The fact that sodium is a preservative does not. Those "extraneous details" are not irrelevant at all. They are the costs that come with the benefits of better health. My argument is not that "everything unhealthy should be taxed", my argument is that "everything unhealthy should be taxed if the benefits of said tax will outweigh the costs". And for that we need to have a reasonable grasp of the costs and benefits at hand so that we may make an informed judgment. "Past the very basics, people can be very different in what makes them happy." I'm glad you at least agree that the basics are universally shared. Do you not agree that the desire for affordable healthcare is practically universal? "those who deny themselves pleasure as part of a spiritual trial" In order to ultimately obtain something they want more. A greater happiness. And of course their beliefs are almost certainly incorrect if they disagree with scientific reasoning. "others seek gratification in catching HIV at parties geared towards spreading that virus." Is it not clear to you that they are behaving irrationally? Is it not clear to you that they're sacrificing greater long-term happiness for lesser short-term happiness? Is it not clear to you that this is therefore bad? "Your argument is basically..." Just because you want that to be my argument does not make it so. No, my argument is that this tax will obviously be slightly unfair to some, but that the benefits will outweigh that slight unfairness. "Therefore your tax idea treats everyone like they are obese and depressed." As I Have Said, this is an example of collateral damage -- a kind of cost. By paying it we can obtain benefits. Let's try being more precise: + 200 billion saved in annual health care costs - 50 billion payed = 150 billion net gain in dollars + p (dollar amount gained from greater worker productivity) x h (happiness per dollar) + ho (average happiness gain among those who avoided becoming obese) - s (suffering from having to pay slightly more for obesity inducing foods) (150B + p)h + ho > s? I don't see how any informed, honest judge could say no. As the Urban article states, obesity rates are continuing to grow at an alarming rate. Is there any point where you would be willing to draw a line and say the costs of that obesity warrant government action? Side: Yes, they should
There's no special pleading there. The criteria are neither tenuous nor vague. They are quite specific. It may be the case that measuring happiness precisely is outside our capabilities, but it is theoreticaly possible, and even without a precise measurement we can make reasonable estimations. It's special pleading because your reasoning applies to just about everything, but you choose only one thing (fatty foods and obesity) and try to justify it as somehow by setting up special criteria for it. Healthier is better. Healthier means lower health-care costs. Lower health-care costs mean we have more resources to devote toward satisfying our wants. Not being obese generally means greater personal happiness. Obviously, there are sacrifices that have to be made in order to be healthy, and we have to weigh those costs against the benefits. Yes, happiness is subjective. But this does not invalidate my argument, for reasons I have already elaborated on. Blah blah blah. Just go on arguing why apples are better than oranges and star trek is better than star wars. Get back to me when you realise that there is no "best" for subjective things. I don't feel like arguing this point with you any longer. It's just you saying X is better because you think it is, and me pointing out that it isn't objectively better (and hence applicable to everyone). Actually that's exactly where I suspect the unhappiness comes from. Except I would guess the problem comes from douches of all flavors, not just the liberal kind. Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that if they were not obese they would generally be happier. Seeing as obese people don't need to be thin to be happy, that this has been pointed out to you and agreed upon by you, the obvious answer is that you persist in your tired argument that "obese people should be thin to be happy" because this is about making you happy. Learn to drop a topic. You're wrong. Are you so unintelligent (or stubborn?) that you must defend a point until it rings upon deaf ears, and causes pain to others, despite them pointing out the obvious failing of that point that even you recognise? I can't believe I have to explicitly state such an obvious inference: An economic incentive has a relatively low cost/benefit ratio with respect to happiness. The cost of an outright ban would be much higher and you would get diminishing marginal returns. In other words, I'm not sure whether a ban would be worth it. I think the answer is, "probably not". You're being evasive. The logical conclusion of your reasoning is complete control over everyone's actions, no personal choice, because you believe that a government knows better than the individual what they ought to be doing for "happiness." You assume two huge things: that most people know what will make them happy and that they're capable of making the sacrifices necessary to obtain that happiness. If you think humans really operate this way then perhaps it is you who needs to obtain more experience in the real world. No. I'm making the (correct) assumption that on matters of personal happiness you cannot think for people or pretend to know what's best for people in order to make them happy. You can only assist them when they invite that assistance. We take it one step further by making decisions for people when they are an encumbrance to society. Since you are so dense on this topic, I'll give you an experiment to carry out in real life: take any person on the street you happen to meet, talk with them a little to get to know them, and then tell them you are going to interfere in their life to make them happy because you think they aren't capable of doing it. You have already agreed that freedom of choice is not absolute. You have already agreed that government should step in when people's actions start fucking things up for other people. Well that's precisely what fat people are doing by sucking up a disproportionate amount of the available healthcare resources. Disproportionate? I guess your dumbfuckery knows no bounds. I hate people who hide behind logic to justify obvious personal biases. You don't like people who are heavier than you, you feel disgusted by them and this entire conversation have attempted to find some sort of logic that allows you to pick on them while excluding the others you feel indifferent towards. Disproportionate. You ignore cancer patients who take an excessive amount of healthcare to receive treatments, even though many cancers come from personal choices during their lives. You ignore the medical costs of those with diabetes even though their disease can be exacerbated by the life they lead. You ignore the STD treatments of promiscuous and irresponsible individuals (but I guess if they're getting laid a lot that means they're hot, and you want that). You ignore the healthcare costs of gays and lesbians, because as everyone knows they are depressed more than the general population and more prone to STDs. You ignore the medical costs of people who suffer from dementia and need to live in long term care facilities, using tax dollars, despite some research that suggests ways these people could have pushed back the onset of their mental disease. That's not even the full list. These are all people you pay for, but don't give a damn about. No, to you the problem is fat people. No, I'm not. You're making invalid comparisons to avoid discussing the central point. Watching baseball instead of football doesn't lead to people being unable to get the healthcare they need. There is no clear evidence showing that people are happier if they watch football rather than baseball. The costs of such a tax would likely outweigh the benefits. I guess you never heard of metaphors or reduction to absurdity. All of those things factor in. But you're missing what I would say is the largest factor in human decision making: "Is this relevant to my short-term interests? Will this cause my monkey-brain to release happy chemicals or restrict unhappy chemicals ASAP?" You can't get people to do shit if they don't want to do it. They'll just tell you to fuck off (or if they're less honest, they'll come up with some bullshit objection) unless you have the power to enforce your arguments. All I'm reading is "wah wah wah I can't make people agree with me that fat people are horrible burdens! I'm gonna go to guberment daddy and have it make everyone do what I say is best." Not true. The best answer is the one that satisfies wants to the greatest degree. Which is an arbitrary selection criteria, and doesn't make a subjective value or argument objectively true. My argument is not that "everything unhealthy should be taxed", my argument is that "everything unhealthy should be taxed if the benefits of said tax will outweigh the costs". Which, again, is just about everything. Yet you still discriminate using special pleading that only fatty foods should be taxed. It should be obvious to you by now that you can't hide your faulty reasoning from me with language and diversions. I'm glad you at least agree that the basics are universally shared. Do you not agree that the desire for affordable healthcare is practically universal? No, I don't. There are people who want their own private healthcare, and not to pay through tax for government healthcare. There are people who are wealthy enough that they don't care about the costs. And nobody agrees on what is "affordable." In order to ultimately obtain something they want more. A greater happiness. And of course their beliefs are almost certainly incorrect if they disagree with scientific reasoning. It doesn't matter if their beliefs disagree with science. The fact is, they exist and are different. I don't see how any informed, honest judge could say no. Special pleading again. But do keep grasping at straws in order to somehow justify picking on one group out of many that apply to your reasoning. As the Urban article states, obesity rates are continuing to grow at an alarming rate. Is there any point where you would be willing to draw a line and say the costs of that obesity warrant government action? It's not the government's prerogative to tell a person "hey, you're fat, go exercise." The government isn't your daddy. Side: NO! What the heck?
"your reasoning applies to just about everything, but you choose only one thing (fatty foods and obesity) and try to justify it as somehow by setting up special criteria for it." We obviously can't discuss every issue under the sun. Focusing on one particular example helps focus the discussion. "Just go on arguing why apples are better than oranges..." If you like apples better than oranges, then to you, apples are better. That's the thing you're failing to grasp. "It's just you saying X is better because you think it is, and me pointing out that it isn't objectively better" Yes, you keep saying that, as though it's in any way relevant to this discussion. X is better because it leads to greater overall happiness. The idea that happiness should be promoted is a universally shared value. "obese people should be thin to be happy" That's not my argument. My argument is that "obese people, in general, would be happier if they were thin." And that's true. It seems as though you're incapable of responding to what I'm actually saying. You're refusing to leave the fairy-land inside your head where you're always right and all arguments that you disagree with are easily dispatched like so many extras in a crappy Kung-Fu movie. "The logical conclusion of your reasoning is complete control over everyone's actions, no personal choice, because you believe that a government knows better than the individual what they ought to be doing for "happiness."" If it were actually true that a government knew better, then that would be true. But a majority of the time that's not true. What makes the obesity issue different is that research clearly shows a path to greater well-being through legislation. "on matters of personal happiness you cannot think for people or pretend to know what's best for people in order to make them happy" Yes you can. Society does this successfully all the time. Traffic laws, for example, ultimately lead to greater personal happiness. This is why they exist. "take any person on the street you happen to meet, talk with them a little to get to know them, and then tell them you are going to interfere in their life to make them happy because you think they aren't capable of doing it." If my position is clear and logical and based on scientific facts, then obviously they should accept my interference. But they probably won't. Good job proving my point. "You don't like people who are heavier than you..." Keep telling yourself that. People who disagree with you are stupid and/or evil. It couldn't possibly be that you're mistaken about something. "You ignore [various other issues]..." Yes, it may be the case that government involvement in any of those issues could lead to a better outcome. But let's keep this discussion focused please. "I guess you never heard of metaphors or reduction to absurdity." I guess you use flippant remarks to avoid dealing with arguments to which you have no real response. "All I'm reading is "wah wah wah I can't make people agree with me that fat people are horrible burdens! I'm gonna go to guberment daddy and have it make everyone do what I say is best."" Strawman and name-calling. Classy. People need guidance. Deal with it. "Which is an arbitrary selection criteria, and doesn't make a subjective value or argument objectively true." Objectivity doesn't fucking matter when the vast majority perceives something in the same way. There are such things as universal wants. Get it though your skull. "There are people who want their own private healthcare, and not to pay through tax for government healthcare. There are people who are wealthy enough that they don't care about the costs." Again with the strawmen. I wasn't talking about government healthcare. I said "affordable", meaning one can obtain it for themselves without having to make serious sacrifices. Everybody wants that. You're just avoiding the issue. "It doesn't matter if their beliefs disagree with science. The fact is, they exist and are different." What? They're beliefs are just plain wrong. You know that. Besides, all beliefs are ultimately directed toward fulfilling wants. Untrue beliefs merely do a bad job of that. "It's not the government's prerogative to tell a person "hey, you're fat, go exercise."" If that would make the overall happiness go up for the long-term, then it is their prerogative. But it probably wouldn't. You've conveniently forgotten that I believe overly invasive laws are counter-productive. Because there is a greater cost for the benefit. Side: Yes, they should
1
point
Shouldn't people be stopped from looking like this? Warning - Googled a picture of a fat woman. May cause distress unless you're American. http://weird-websites.info/Ugly-People/ They're not going to do it on their own because westerners tend to be weak minded and weak willed. Money seems to be the best motivational tool - so tax the shit out of them until they loose weight. Or inject them with AIDS - it's not likely to spread because tbh... who'd tap that? Side: Yes, they should
so, all i have to say is that i found an image to combat the one you have. yep. sorry that link is ridiculous, but look anyway. you may have to look for the image, not sure. Side: Yes, they should
Shouldn't people be stopped from looking like this? How about we tax ugly or average-looking people like yourself too. They're not going to do it on their own because westerners tend to be weak minded and weak willed. Money seems to be the best motivational tool - so tax the shit out of them until they loose weight. Or inject them with AIDS - it's not likely to spread because tbh... who'd tap that? People won't get plastic surgery on their own, they're too weak-minded. We'd better tax them until they get a face lift and remove their ugliness from society. Side: NO! What the heck?
Can't tax me. I'm good looking. Cosmetic surgery is wrong. For selfish reasons anyway of which 99% of it is. All it takes is will power. And maybe a better society. Not the dirty, savage, barbaric american society. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your experience of American culture is limited to popular media and peripheral exposure. Side: NO! What the heck?
Because those many of you have no morals. Everybody knows that the right and wrong thing to do is. In America.. they're more than happy to choose the wrong thing over the right. Like what? You're really vague to the point that I wonder what you're talking about, and if you even know. Side: NO! What the heck?
|
It's important for overweight Americans to change their eating habits, but it shouldn't be forced on them, they need to do it on their own. It would be an easier process though if there wasn't so much junkfood and fastfood out there to tempt them. If any laws or restrictions should be made they should make them for the food industry. Side: NO! What the heck?
no, people should not be told what they can or cant eat. why would anyone want to be so controlling as to go so far as telling someone they cant have something because "theyre too fat"? how does anyone think they have the right to say that? not only is it rude, but very degrading, and all people have feelings. this just hurts them. Side: NO! What the heck?
1
point
1
point
A tax on sugary sweets is outrageous (especially considering the price on sugar has gone up with importation laws being changed). People should be able to eat as unhealthy as they wish because it's their deathbed or health insurance that they have to pay for their diabetes medication. Side: NO! What the heck?
1
point
1
point
|