If you were POTUS or leader of some other Western country, what would you do to combat the obesity epidemic?

submitted by WorldSharp from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Do you realize how nauseating and adolescent you sound? Were not talking about dictators micro managing lives here were talking about living in a society where people have certain rights but also certain responsibilities. Obesity is an anti-social manifestation. In no sane society should a person have the right to the 'freedom' to behave in ways that are harmful and costly to others. If you are too disgusting and lazy to shower and use deodorant before you get on the bus it is not your right and freedom to stink up that bus for the rest of the passengers. You have a duty to not behave in such an irresponsible manner and if you refuse to comply you have to be punished or coerced into curbing your antisocial behaviour.

Obesity costs the health care system 100s of billions of dollars and if you refuse to 'micro manage' your own life to prevent yourself from becoming obese then you are failing yourself and the people around you and there needs to be intervention.

[–]peaceful✞ 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I think stinking up a bus is more offensive to a person than obesity costs. There is a lot of money that can be allocated for health care if we want freedom to eat. My view is only subjective, the cost is worth the freedom.

But by your reasoning guns should be illegal since they will always cause mass shootings, murders and associated costs. Where do you draw the line in limiting freedoms? The answer is contingent on subjectivity.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

But by your reasoning guns should be illegal since they will always cause mass shootings, murders and associated costs. Where do you draw the line in limiting freedoms? The answer is contingent on subjectivity.

Society needs guns to ward off predators. Why do you need a Big Mac & Pepsi everyday? Start drinking water and eat a salad instead.

[–]peaceful✞ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You have far more dangerous predators, and far more numerous, because of guns.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Naw, guns are safe when they're in the right hands.

Remove "inner city violence" and America's homicide rate would mirror that of Europe.

But we can absolutely live without Mcdonalds and junk food, whereas guns at least serve some kind of purpose.

These companies are only selling this stuff because they suckered enough people into believing it's real food when it's just recycled trash. It's just like Tobacco companies of the past who convinced the public cigarettes were harmless. Except when it gave everyone lung cancer, they started going out of business. Fast food is just your ticket to getting a heart attack or diabetes with no other benefits.