Food should be regulated like tobacco

[nitz]

No you should do feel guilty when you have a cigarette, i agree, but when you need help from the illnesss, without private insurance (which could not cause a problem), but instead you need help from NHS, yes i think it's problem. Why would people fat bash fat people for being fat and needed help but nobody says anything to smoker.

Wouldn't that essentially mean the NHS was only for the unfortunate? People who have got illnesses through absolutely no fault of their own? Vegans with the flu. Most people requiring help from the NHS have probably done something to contribute to their illness.

The whole point of the NHS is a minimum level of health care for everybody, regardless of life choices.

I've changed my tune

It was meant to say NOT* my bad.

NHS is there to provide free healthcare for all, but they do take into account your lifestyle choices.

[OGLemon]

Fat people shouldn't be allowed to breed.

[test_recordings]

A calorie is not a calorie, i.e. not all calories are equal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lu ... 59564.html

[nowaysj]

Fat people shouldn't be allowed to bread.

[rickyarbino]

A calorie is not a calorie, i.e. not all calories are equal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lu ... 59564.html

That source though.

[magma]

research "THE FORD PINTO CASE"

Oop, has someone recently discovered Naomi Klein? That's a very famous case and doesn't really apply here. There's a rather huge difference between a company not fixing a problem with their product that will affect their customer's (*other people's*) lives due to CBA and an individual affecting their *own* life through making 'poor' choices like smoking or eating too much sugar. If you negatively affect you're own life you might be an idiot, if you negatively affect someone else's life for profit you might be a negligent criminal. Aren't you a... law student?

No you should not* feel guilty when you have a cigarette, i agree, but when you need help from the illnesss, without private insurance (which could not cause a problem), but instead you need help from NHS, yes i think it's problem. Why would people fat bash fat people for being fat and needed help but nobody says anything to smoker.

What the fuck are you talking about "Nobody says anything to smoker"? For the whole of my life smoking has been campaigned against and seen as one of the dirtiest habits short of being addicted to illegal drugs; warnings have been put onto (soon to be unbranded) packets, smoking in public spaces has been banned and wander past a school party with a cigarette and half the kids will feign coughing fits to let you know how disgusting you are. Compare that to how it was treated 50 years ago. Sure, people are still able to smoke, but to say society says less to smokers than to "fat people" you must be joking or entirely ignorant. There are TV programmes on TV all Saturday and Sunday about how to creatively get fat... when was the last show you saw about the joys of smoking? I see plenty of adverts for ice creams, frozen pizzas and McDonalds but all I see about smoking is advice on how to quit.

However my post was never to compare smoking and obesity (and didn't), it was to express that nobody in society needs to make anyone else in society feel like they've let anyone down by living life how they want. All of us make up society in our own image and ourselves in its; you are a product of your environment as much as your environment is a product of you. There's no need to bash people for being obese, for being anorexic, for being a smoker, for riding a motorbike, for taking ecstasy or for being a timid little flower who looks like he's missing out on some of life's greatest pleasures in the hope of extending his stay... just to accept that everyone takes a slightly different route through their individual shot at life, but however we get there, we *all* end up in the same destination.

Enjoy your trip. Let me enjoy mine.

[rickyarbino]

I'm with magma on those points.
Litterally the opposite is true when you consider the case of obesity vs smoking, people have been talking about wait-listing issues caused by legal drug abuse for yonks.

[wub]

[nitz]

research "THE FORD PINTO CASE"

Oop, has someone recently discovered Naomi Klein? That's a very famous case and doesn't really apply here. There's a rather huge difference between a company not fixing a problem with their product that will affect their customer's (*other people's*) lives due to CBA and an individual affecting their *own* life through making 'poor' choices like smoking or eating too much sugar. If you negatively affect you're own life you might be an idiot, if you negatively affect someone else's life for profit you might be a negligent criminal. Aren't you a... law student?

I don't know if you've actually read the full case or not, but they did not consider the part to be sufficiently dandgours to amount to a recall. Do you know how many cars are out there, with some minor fault that the manufactory about but it's not grave enough to amount to a recall (of couse they don't tell the officials that. It was only when people started dying via fires they had to recall the cars. Not all negligence is the same in the eyes of the law. It was not they had they a back room plan and said look guys were fucked, this shit is gonna kill lots of people, but lets just say we don't know about and do a cost benefit analyse.

No you should not* feel guilty when you have a cigarette, i agree, but when you need help from the illnesss, without private insurance (which could not cause a problem), but instead you need help from NHS, yes i think it's problem. Why would people fat bash fat people for being fat and needed help but nobody says anything to smoker.

What the fuck are you talking about "Nobody says anything to smoker"? For the whole of my life smoking has been campaigned against and seen as one of the dirtiest habits short of being addicted to illegal drugs; warnings have been put onto (soon to be unbranded) packets, smoking in public spaces has been banned and wander past a school party with a cigarette and half the kids will feign coughing fits to let you know how disgusting you are. Compare that to how it was treated 50 years ago. Sure, people are still able to smoke, but to say society says less to smokers than to "fat people" you must be joking or entirely ignorant. There are TV programmes on TV all Saturday and Sunday about how to creatively get fat... when was the last show you saw about the joys of smoking? I see plenty of adverts for ice creams, frozen pizzas and McDonalds but all I see about smoking is advice on how to quit.

You missed the point completely. Smoking has a bad rep in the media of obis reasons, but smokers are not bashed per se, they advise you to stop and that's the end of the matter. However, for fat people it's the different side of the coin. They are actively taken the piss of, refused medical treatment mentally put down because they are fat. Look at this thread, bare man have bashed fat people, how many of them have actively said smokers are really bad too. No they just said smoking itself it bad.

However my post was never to compare smoking and obesity (and didn't), it was to express that nobody in society needs to make anyone else in society feel like they've let anyone down by living life how they want. All of us make up society in our own image and ourselves in its; you are a product of your environment as much as your environment is a product of you. There's no need to bash people for being obese, for being anorexic, for being a smoker, for riding a motorbike, for taking ecstasy or for being a timid little flower who looks like he's missing out on some of life's greatest pleasures in the hope of extending his stay... just to accept that everyone takes a slightly different route through their individual shot at life, but however we get there, we *all* end up in the same destination.

You say obese people should not be bashed, yet they 24/7 do. You can't denied that.

You've made some good points, i accept some of them. I've gotta an exam in a hour so i gotta shoot. Call it a day before DSF turns into the debating society. Good debate tho still

Enjoy your trip. Let me enjoy mine.

[magma]

I don't know if you've actually read the full case or not, but they did not consider the part to be sufficiently dandgours to amount to a recall. Do you know how many cars are out there, with some minor fault that the manufactory about but it's not grave enough to amount to a recall (of couse they don't tell the officials that. It was only when people started dying via fires they had to recall the cars. Not all negligence is the same in the eyes of the law. It was not they had they a back room plan and said look guys were fucked, this shit is gonna kill lots of people, but lets just say we don't know about and do a cost benefit analyse.

Again, the willful negligence of a profit making company leading to unexpected harm to their customers is *entirely different* to the poor decisions of an individual leading the harm of that same individual. It's even fairly different to a company providing products to customers who know the risks ('Big' Tobacco or McDonalds). Ford Motor Company have a responsibility to not profit by putting others in unforeseen danger of their lives no matter what the CBA; an individual human choosing to eat poorly (which is all we're talking about here) only has to answer to himself and would be unable to pay himself compensation even if he could be prosecuted in some bizarre way. I don't know why you think the most famous example of failed Corporate CBA is relevant to a discussion about obesity and smoking?

You missed the point completely. Smoking has a bad rep in the media of obis reasons, but smokers are not bashed per se, they advise you to stop and that's the end of the matter. However, for fat people it's the different side of the coin. They are actively taken the piss of, refused medical treatment mentally put down because they are fat. Look at this thread, bare man have bashed fat people, how many of them have actively said smokers are really bad too. No they just said smoking itself it bad.

You say obese people should not be bashed, yet they 24/7 do. You can't denied that.

Ok, I'm trying to tell you that neither group should be made to feel bad about their choices:

However my post was never to compare smoking and obesity (and didn't), it was to express that nobody in society needs to make anyone else in society feel like they've let anyone down by living life how they want.

It strikes me that you're saying "Well, society acts horribly to these people, so it should also act horribly to THESE people.". How about we act horribly to no people?

[nitz]

I don't know if you've actually read the full case or not, but they did not consider the part to be sufficiently dandgours to amount to a recall. Do you know how many cars are out there, with some minor fault that the manufactory about but it's not grave enough to amount to a recall (of couse they don't tell the officials that. It was only when people started dying via fires they had to recall the cars. Not all negligence is the same in the eyes of the law. It was not they had they a back room plan and said look guys were fucked, this shit is gonna kill lots of people, but lets just say we don't know about and do a cost benefit analyse.

Again, the willful negligence of a profit making company leading to harm to their customers is *entirely different* to the poor decisions of an individual leading the harm of that same individual. Ford Motor Company have a responsibility to not profit by putting others in danger of their lives no matter what the CBA; an individual human only has to answer to himself and is unable to pay himself compensation. I don't know why you think it's relevant to a discussion about obesity and smoking?

You missed the point completely. Smoking has a bad rep in the media of obis reasons, but smokers are not bashed per se, they advise you to stop and that's the end of the matter. However, for fat people it's the different side of the coin. They are actively taken the piss of, refused medical treatment mentally put down because they are fat. Look at this thread, bare man have bashed fat people, how many of them have actively said smokers are really bad too. No they just said smoking itself it bad.

You say obese people should not be bashed, yet they 24/7 do. You can't denied that.

Ok, I'm trying to tell you that neither group should be made to feel bad about their choices:

However my post was never to compare smoking and obesity (and didn't), it was to express that nobody in society needs to make anyone else in society feel like they've let anyone down by living life how they want.

It strikes me that you're saying "Well, society acts horribly to these people, so it should also act horribly to THESE people.". How about we act horrible to no people?

Look you've clearly citing a debate of consequentialism vs libertarianism, eithering knowingly or mistakenly. You saying everyone is free to what what they want, it's their life and the result if there problem; no government nor individual should have a say in said life. You and Robert Nozick would have been the best of friends. This debate has been going from from Hume, and bent ham's start of legal positivism. It's not resolvable; grave difference in option.

[Muncey]

See we don't need food regulation when we have good ol' fashioned bullying.

[magma]

I don't know if you've actually read the full case or not, but they did not consider the part to be sufficiently dandgours to amount to a recall. Do you know how many cars are out there, with some minor fault that the manufactory about but it's not grave enough to amount to a recall (of couse they don't tell the officials that. It was only when people started dying via fires they had to recall the cars. Not all negligence is the same in the eyes of the law. It was not they had they a back room plan and said look guys were fucked, this shit is gonna kill lots of people, but lets just say we don't know about and do a cost benefit analyse.

Again, the willful negligence of a profit making company leading to harm to their customers is *entirely different* to the poor decisions of an individual leading the harm of that same individual. Ford Motor Company have a responsibility to not profit by putting others in danger of their lives no matter what the CBA; an individual human only has to answer to himself and is unable to pay himself compensation. I don't know why you think it's relevant to a discussion about obesity and smoking?

You missed the point completely. Smoking has a bad rep in the media of obis reasons, but smokers are not bashed per se, they advise you to stop and that's the end of the matter. However, for fat people it's the different side of the coin. They are actively taken the piss of, refused medical treatment mentally put down because they are fat. Look at this thread, bare man have bashed fat people, how many of them have actively said smokers are really bad too. No they just said smoking itself it bad.

You say obese people should not be bashed, yet they 24/7 do. You can't denied that.

Ok, I'm trying to tell you that neither group should be made to feel bad about their choices:

However my post was never to compare smoking and obesity (and didn't), it was to express that nobody in society needs to make anyone else in society feel like they've let anyone down by living life how they want.

It strikes me that you're saying "Well, society acts horribly to these people, so it should also act horribly to THESE people.". How about we act horrible to no people?

Look you've clearly citing a debate of consequentialism vs libertarianism, eithering knowingly or mistakenly. You saying everyone is free to what what they want, it's their life and the result if there problem; no government nor individual should have a say in said life. You and Robert Nozick would have been the best of friends. This debate has been going from from Hume, and bent ham's start of legal positivism. It's not resolvable; grave difference in option.

Whatever titles you'd like to apply to my thoughts, all I'm saying is you shouldn't bully people for their life choices. Whether it's smoking, obesity, taking part in dangerous sports, taking drugs or becoming a steeplejack... the only person an individual answers to is himself.

If your actions affect others (for instance if you choose to be a social bully or smoke in a nursery) then it's a different story; but we're not talking about that. We're talking about individuals spoiling their own health by eating the 'wrong' foods.

It seems very simple, perhaps you can explain why it's not?

[Muncey]

You saying everyone is free to what what they want, it's their life and the result if there problem; no government nor individual should have a say in said life.

Is that a bad thing? I'm surprised anyone, other than authoritarians, aren't supportive of personal liberty. As long as it doesn't impose on other people why does it matter what you do to yourself? In the words of the wise Doug Stanhope "You own your body. No legislation should infringe on that."

[magma]

You saying everyone is free to what what they want, it's their life and the result if there problem; no government nor individual should have a say in said life.

There's a big difference between personal liberty and people being able to do whatever they want. I'm talking about liberty that extends to the individual... actions that affect me and nobody else. Food is a prime example of that. If I choose to eat McDonalds for the rest of my life I will ruin my insides, but your life will carry on entirely unaffected.

Society has a responsibility to educate the individual on how to treat their body, but not much further than that. If I want to kill myself, tattoo myself or conduct experiments on myself, I should be allowed to.

You absolutely need to educate the individual on how best to look after a human body (along with how best to make a career, how best to be happy, how best to not be an antisocial arsehole), but you only need to put controls where actions affect other people. Smoking has two good examples either side of this. People get educated against smoking by massive childhood campaigns, warnings on packets and common phrases such as "dirty habit", "filthy smoker" and "cigarette-Ash Lil" - nobody in this area of the world has any doubt that "Smoking Kills", makes you smell, fucks up unborn children and stains your teeth and fingernails... but they are free to take it up if they really want to. Passive smoking, however, can cause illness and death in non-smokers, so clearly banning smoking in public places was a pretty sensible idea.

In your example Ford Motor Company made profits by allowing a certain number of their customers to die in flames on the road without telling them the risk - that's a different matter entirely, which is why I said it was irrelevant. That's negligence bordering on the criminal. You have to let people know what risks they're taking before allowing to take them. Ford Motor Company hid those risks. I believe they were eventually forced to run a recall, but in my personal opinion, someone should have been locked up.

[nowaysj]

Society has a responsibility to educate the individual on how to treat their body

Dude, we don't even do that. There is so much disinformation, misinformation, confusion, competing theories, profit motivated research, useless eater destroying information out there, if anyone can make sense of it, please let me know.

It has taken me a long time to figure out that, for me and my body, the US food pyramid is upside down, and I should be eating more fats, proteins, fruits and vegetables than grains, and that in fact, I should only eat minimal amounts of grains. My food choices are in direct contravention of what I've been told all my life, and I am healthier for it. The codex alimentarius is truly horrifying.

[Muncey]

Society has a responsibility to educate the individual on how to treat their body

Dude, we don't even do that. There is so much disinformation, misinformation, confusion, competing theories, profit motivated research, useless eater destroying information out there, if anyone can make sense of it, please let me know.

It has taken me a long time to figure out that, for me and my body, the US food pyramid is upside down, and I should be eating more fats, proteins, fruits and vegetables than grains, and that in fact, I should only eat minimal amounts of grains. My food choices are in direct contravention of what I've been told all my life, and I am healthier for it. The codex alimentarius is truly horrifying.

I get your point to a certain degree but thats being educated on specifics of diet. In general terms though anybody living in the western world who thinks smoking 40 a day, drinking a bottle of whiskey daily or living of mcdonalds all your life is a healthy life style is a fucking idiot because its common knowledge that its not. Society does a pretty good job telling us these things are not good for us.

I would fully support the banning of alcohol, cigarettes and unnecessarily unhealthy food if it was being promoted falsely to an uneducated audience, basically exploiting people, to buy things that are bad for them but that scenario doesn't apply to the modern western world. It barely applies to the majority of the world, certainly not here or the US.

I agree diet education could be improved but it'd be hard to find any area of education which couldn't be improved.

[nitz]

I don't know if you've actually read the full case or not, but they did not consider the part to be sufficiently dandgours to amount to a recall. Do you know how many cars are out there, with some minor fault that the manufactory about but it's not grave enough to amount to a recall (of couse they don't tell the officials that. It was only when people started dying via fires they had to recall the cars. Not all negligence is the same in the eyes of the law. It was not they had they a back room plan and said look guys were fucked, this shit is gonna kill lots of people, but lets just say we don't know about and do a cost benefit analyse.

Again, the willful negligence of a profit making company leading to harm to their customers is *entirely different* to the poor decisions of an individual leading the harm of that same individual. Ford Motor Company have a responsibility to not profit by putting others in danger of their lives no matter what the CBA; an individual human only has to answer to himself and is unable to pay himself compensation. I don't know why you think it's relevant to a discussion about obesity and smoking?

You missed the point completely. Smoking has a bad rep in the media of obis reasons, but smokers are not bashed per se, they advise you to stop and that's the end of the matter. However, for fat people it's the different side of the coin. They are actively taken the piss of, refused medical treatment mentally put down because they are fat. Look at this thread, bare man have bashed fat people, how many of them have actively said smokers are really bad too. No they just said smoking itself it bad.

You say obese people should not be bashed, yet they 24/7 do. You can't denied that.

Ok, I'm trying to tell you that neither group should be made to feel bad about their choices:

However my post was never to compare smoking and obesity (and didn't), it was to express that nobody in society needs to make anyone else in society feel like they've let anyone down by living life how they want.

It strikes me that you're saying "Well, society acts horribly to these people, so it should also act horribly to THESE people.". How about we act horrible to no people?

Look you've clearly citing a debate of consequentialism vs libertarianism, eithering knowingly or mistakenly. You saying everyone is free to what what they want, it's their life and the result if there problem; no government nor individual should have a say in said life. You and Robert Nozick would have been the best of friends. This debate has been going from from Hume, and bent ham's start of legal positivism. It's not resolvable; grave difference in option.

Whatever titles you'd like to apply to my thoughts, all I'm saying is you shouldn't bully people for their life choices. Whether it's smoking, obesity, taking part in dangerous sports, taking drugs or becoming a steeplejack... the only person an individual answers to is himself.

If your actions affect others (for instance if you choose to be a social bully or smoke in a nursery) then it's a different story; but we're not talking about that. We're talking about individuals spoiling their own health by eating the 'wrong' foods.

It seems very simple, perhaps you can explain why it's not?

Once again, with no surpise, you are misreading what i've written. So let me sum all of this up, in a few concise sentences. You can choose to live your own life however you want; that's your prerogative. People should understand the health issues for example of obesity tho. Education is key. However, when your life style causes bad affect on others, and institutions generally then your free choice is out the window. It's that simply. No re-interpreation is needed, its very clear. It's like a nuo liberty/betham vibe in the middle. Like Ron paul liberation, but at the same time it's not bulletproof.

Unless you can explain in a few sentence your point of view, i'm not going to continue on with this. From what i've interpreted you clear don't care/ not bothers a bouts other, because your liberty comes first.Hence why you're saying let me get on with my life as i plea.

[nitz]

Society has a responsibility to educate the individual on how to treat their body

Dude, we don't even do that. There is so much disinformation, misinformation, confusion, competing theories, profit motivated research, useless eater destroying information out there, if anyone can make sense of it, please let me know.

It has taken me a long time to figure out that, for me and my body, the US food pyramid is upside down, and I should be eating more fats, proteins, fruits and vegetables than grains, and that in fact, I should only eat minimal amounts of grains. My food choices are in direct contravention of what I've been told all my life, and I am healthier for it. The codex alimentarius is truly horrifying.

Food pyramid is need a load of waffle. Mis -education, it's so bad you think it's should have changed. Grain to a large extend are awful Inflammation's best friend, and in your gut too. Some grains are good, in very limited moderation.

Veg and fruit should be at the bottom
followed by meat and fish (well certain meats anyway)
Then nuts and seeds
Then herbs and spices
healthy fats

Give or take - this shit will fix a lot of people. It's ilk a basic paleo diet. But trying not to forucs too much on meat.

[DJoe]

dont know if this has been said. only skimmed through but

would heavy taxation on certain food products or components that are related to causing obesity work?

the companies using producing these products would have to increase the price through using expensive food components due to this taxation

that way people are free to make their own choices but nudged in the right direction

also money spent on this food is redirected to the public through taxation into the NHS for example