Education is also a form of coercion. Do you agree we should close all universities and send their lecturers in prison?
Excess of sugar is more deadly than tobacco, but who cares?
Do you agree we should enact laws requiring all people be limited to TV and computer monitors of no more than 20 inches? To, um, 'educate' the public about the importance of exercise and civic involvement?
I don't, not if an individual decides that they would rather live a shorter life with better tasting food.
I drink very little in the way of soft drinks now because of diabetes type two and I think if at an earlier age all this had been made very plain to me I'd never have started out drinking diet cola and other sugary beverages, I also think I'd have never drank any of the so called energy drinks.
Although I probably would have still disliked the fact that water is now a commodity, I remember well the world before anyone could package water and sell it in countries like mine and it made sense, buying bottled water was considered very middle class when you could just turn on a tap and get water.
The steady run down of the water services has perhaps changed that some what but I still sort of feel odd about buying "just water"
Why not legalize crack, amphetamines and heroine then? And make adds and commercials to sell them? Selling hard drugs is a very profitable business, like any other.
We'll let "make them their own decision" and see if it's really "the fairest and most long-term-productive solution".
Obesity in the US is more deadly than crack, amphetamine, cocaine and heroine all together... so who cares?
Yeah, the plan sounds terrible--if you present it without its single most important step.
Moreover, I'm not sure how that ad absurdum thing ("why not legalize drugs?") makes a point if drugs are less deadly than obesity.
When I read this thread and the sheer amount of stupidity that is inside, yes, sometimes I really fear we're not so far from the situation described in Idiocracy.
If we take the opposite approach and redirect our society's trajectory with a bunch of (albeit well-intentioned, 'for our own good') restrictions, we'll still wind up with a world devoid of critical thinking because we'll be overreliant upon those laws.
Last edited by garbage; 06-23-2013 at 12:17 PM.
But obesity is bad: it's a disease, it's currently the worst epidemic in the developed world, and it kills millions of people each year.
Don't play that kind of sophistry, Quinlan...
Who ever died only because of their obesity? Not obesity related illnesses just obesity.
A reduction in soda consumption would benefit just about everyone and should be sold as such, no need to frame it with more scaremongering about the obese.
I'll try another one of my analogies that you love so much;
Let's assume drinking soda causes type 2 diabetes.
Drinking soda, can cause you to gain weight but that is a trivial side effect compared to the actual illness it causes; Diabetes. Soda drinkers of all sizes can get diabetes so we should all avoid soda, it's counter productive and stigmatising to only focus on the obese soda drinkers. Just because diabetes is related to higher weights doesn't mean we should ignore or excuse the soda drinkers at lower weights.
Smoking cigarettes, can cause you to lose weight but that is a trivial side effect compared to the actual illness it causes; Lung cancer. Smokers of all sizes can get lung cancer so we should all avoid smoking, it's counter productive and stigmatising to only focus on the thin smokers. Just because lung cancer is related to lower weights doesn't mean we should ignore or excuse the smokers at higher weights.
Saying "It's ok that I drink a lot of soda because I'm not fat" is exactly as nonsensical as saying "It's ok that I smoke cigarettes because I'm not thin.