- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
You are actually a fucking moron. The government wasn't telling people what to eat. It was mandating what schools could serve. When kids go home, they can eat whatever the fuck they like. While they are in the government's care, the government obviously wanted them to eat healthily.
I really don't see the issue.
We have laws here that mandate for schools to provide healthy meals, and obesity remains low as a result. Child nutrition is high, and children are generally active and healthy.
How is that a bad thing?
Athletes do fine with roast meat, vegetables and rice/potatoes. Never met an athlete in my life who ate burgers and fries every day. 20% of US children are morbidly obese. 35% of US adults are obese, and a further 34% are overweight. That means 69% of American adults are overweight or obese.
You have an obesity problem, quite clearly.
Nobody is trying to tell parents what their children should eat. This initiative was focused on the meals provided IN SCHOOLS. You know, those places where the government mandate children to be for 6 hours a day from the ages of 4 to 16?
If the government want those institutions to serve healthier foods, it is the government's prerogative to do that. Particularly if it makes children healthier. You know, that group of people who are under the protection of the state and for whom society has a responsibility to care?
No child should be eating cheeseburgers and fries every day for lunch, and if they have to change the menu in order to stop that from happening, then so be it!
What's wrong with roast chicken and vegetables?
As for "athletes needing higher quality food", athletes eat healthily, as a matter of necessity. You won't catch an athlete eating burger and fries day in day out.
Competition doesn't drive innovation anywhere near as much as research drives it. Competition begets conflict. Research begets information and innovation. Cooperation begets efficiency. It wasn't competition that gave us light bulbs, TV's, electricity, cameras, phones, radio, radar, engines, cars, aircraft, rockets, subs, mass farming, penicillin or any other such innovations. It was research, creativity, and continuous application.
In reality, a society based purely on the concept of competition means the fiercest, biggest, strongest, rule the society, but not necessarily the smartest, or the most sensible, or the most rational, or the most qualified.
Competition is much less effective in promoting innovation and fair, freer societies, than altruism, cooperation, rationality, and the search for new information.
The system you describe has arguably brought us more harm than good, if we think about it long term. The level of consumption driven by the systems of competition will lead us to climatic and cultural oblivion.
You cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. It is that simple. And any proposed solution requires not competition, but cooperation. Not selfishness, but altruism. Not conflict, but accord.