Hey…let’s keep this about fatties and not all political.
[quote]Nards wrote:
Hey…let’s keep this about fatties and not all political.[/quote]
“It’s wafer thin!”
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m a libertarian at heart. But nutrition is definitely one area of our lives where we could use a bit of governmental paternalism.[/quote]
No.
No, no, no, no, no.
[/quote]
Well said. The last thing I need is the government telling me what to eat…because I can guarantee once we get to that stage, we will have lost any true sense of self by then.
Bodybuilders would not be seen as normal any more than some obese guy. There are guys who have made it to pro stages who eat the same crap.
Why are we trying to save everyone from themselves? That makes as much sense as throwing someone in jail for smoking a joint. Why do we want to baby sit everyone else?[/quote]
You obviously misunderstand the term “paternalism”. It’s not a scheme where you’re told what to eat or forbidden to eat certain things, but you’re perhaps “nudged” by various incentives to make better decisions.
Why do we want to babysit people? Well X, we already do with our tax dollars. And further, we are babysitting them when they become ill. Why don’t you do some research on how much money the uninsured cost us. Or, how much money chronic illnesses (all or most of which are caused by diet) strain our healthcare system and raise the cost of YOUR medical treatment and insurance.
If we remove any concept of babysitter, well then we can all just start driving without insurance, driving 100 mph thru school zones, while drunk, in our unregistered and uninspected cars. When we do something for the “greater good”, there is a measure of “paternalism” involved.
Perhaps you misunderstood how I intended to the term.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m a libertarian at heart. But nutrition is definitely one area of our lives where we could use a bit of governmental paternalism.[/quote]
No.
No, no, no, no, no.
[/quote]
Well said. The last thing I need is the government telling me what to eat…because I can guarantee once we get to that stage, we will have lost any true sense of self by then.
Bodybuilders would not be seen as normal any more than some obese guy. There are guys who have made it to pro stages who eat the same crap.
Why are we trying to save everyone from themselves? That makes as much sense as throwing someone in jail for smoking a joint. Why do we want to baby sit everyone else?[/quote]
I actually typed something very similar then deleted it leaving just “No”.
My God, peoples heads explode now when I tell them how much eggs and red meat I eat.
Eggs + red meat = Bad. The anti-egg/red-meat crowd lobbies Congress and some idiot goes on a crusade because his uncle had a heart attack.
Next thing you know, there’s a “Cholesterol Tax” or “Red Meat Restriction” (4 oz per week) or something equally as retarded.
Hell, OTC supplements are already on the chopping block. People.better.wake.up.[/quote]
Welp, it seems you also have misunderstood the term. I’m not talking nudges based on bad science. Your “beef” (pun intended) is with bad science and perhaps even big pharm that is making a killing off cholesterol drugs.
I’m talking appropriate nudges, through good incentives and education, to improve people’s diet, not restrict their choices.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m a libertarian at heart. But nutrition is definitely one area of our lives where we could use a bit of governmental paternalism.[/quote]
No.
No, no, no, no, no.
[/quote]
Well said. The last thing I need is the government telling me what to eat…because I can guarantee once we get to that stage, we will have lost any true sense of self by then.
Bodybuilders would not be seen as normal any more than some obese guy. There are guys who have made it to pro stages who eat the same crap.
Why are we trying to save everyone from themselves? That makes as much sense as throwing someone in jail for smoking a joint. Why do we want to baby sit everyone else?[/quote]
Think about the economical point of view. More obese people, less quality health, which leads to less quality workers, more money spend on welfare, health stuff, etc.
It also weakens the nation overall. I’ll exaggerate, but imagine that in the future 80% of the USA citizens are obese. Now you have a very small pool to get good soldiers from. I’m just using soldiers as an example, but I hope you see where I’m going.
[/quote]
No.
Your examples are ridiculous.[/quote]
His example might be ridiculous, but his point is based in fact. And here we go with the typical forum discussion. Someone makes a rash post, makes some assumptions, coupled with an anecdotal exception about omgodz what will the BBs that like to eat crap do, and now we have an “us” v. “them” mentality about a simple subject that affects us all.
Look up right now the obesity rates in this country. While you’re at hit, look up the obesity rates for children. And while you’re at it, look up the projections for the increase in diabetes and heart disease based on the increasing obesity of this country.
We’re not quibbling over BMI and bullshit like that. Get your collective heads out of your asses. The typical american is not walking around with a bunch of lean muscle such that BMI and such is arcane. We’re exceptions, not the rule. The country is fat.
So in addition to raising healthcare costs, we have lost productivity. Have you ever considered or researched the cost of missed work days for obese people?
YOU are paying for fat people right now and you will pay MORE in the future. Why the fuck wouldn’t you want to “nudge” them to make better decisions? Obviously you’re confusing “paternalism” with being told what you can and cannot eat.
Instead of the one liners, and the arguments by exception (referencing BBs and such), someone please provide an intelligent response about the COST of obesity and explain what is wrong with educating people and “nudging” them in the right direction. Do you know what a “nudge” is? Do you know anything at all about “choice architecture”??
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m a libertarian at heart. But nutrition is definitely one area of our lives where we could use a bit of governmental paternalism.[/quote]
No.
No, no, no, no, no.
[/quote]
Well said. The last thing I need is the government telling me what to eat…because I can guarantee once we get to that stage, we will have lost any true sense of self by then.
Bodybuilders would not be seen as normal any more than some obese guy. There are guys who have made it to pro stages who eat the same crap.
Why are we trying to save everyone from themselves? That makes as much sense as throwing someone in jail for smoking a joint. Why do we want to baby sit everyone else?[/quote]
Think about the economical point of view. More obese people, less quality health, which leads to less quality workers, more money spend on welfare, health stuff, etc.
It also weakens the nation overall. I’ll exaggerate, but imagine that in the future 80% of the USA citizens are obese. Now you have a very small pool to get good soldiers from. I’m just using soldiers as an example, but I hope you see where I’m going.
[/quote]
No.
Your examples are ridiculous.[/quote]
So you disagree that having a large portion of the population obese doesn’t affect the economy of a country?
You may want to google “economy obesity” then.
[/quote]
No. I said your examples are ridiculous.
The economy is much more sensitive to government intervention and a fuckton of taxes than it is to fat people. You’re trying to solve the wrong problem if you’re turning this into an economics discussion.
Careful or this thread will get thrown into PWI.[/quote]
You’re wrong.
It is an economic discussion. It is a healthcare discussion. You are already paying for it. Do you have a healthcare or insurance background? Do you know the numbers?
Did you even understand at first what I meant when I said “paternalism” (in the form of nudges, incentives and good choice architecture)? I never mentioned “government intervention” in the vein you and others are imagining it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why the hell are some people so ready to just give up any freedom they have left?[/quote]
And again, this is certainly not something I posted. And this isn’t a BB discussion.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]roon12 wrote:
More detail and a pic of the guy here. I like the bit about his wife having to visit the place for him as he feels like an ‘outcast’.[/quote]
This is the best part. He doesn’t stop going, he just has his wife pick up his food for him.[/quote]
Yeah. Actually this is something I see often. “I don’t like that restaurant/fast food place/whatever” or “At that place they are always very rude”. Then why do you go?[/quote]
His next lawsuit: White Castle is addictive and made me fat. [/quote]
Presenting a document that says that junk food is addictive because bla bla bla.
[/quote]
Well…
It is. And THEY know it is. From the chips to the soda, they know it’s addictive.
I took a sip of my son’s mother’s soda (by accident, she said it was seltzer, it was sprite) the other day. I haven’t had soda in a year. None. Guess what? I wanted to drink the whole fucking glass. I didn’t because I pride myself on discipline, among other things. But the average person does not have discipline. Moreover, the average person doesn’t have the wherewithal or knowledge to understand how fucked up this shit is. Like economics, the average person is on a 5th grade level when it comes to nutrition. They simply do NOT know. Combine the ignorance with the insidious addictiveness of the formulas, and is it any wonder we have an obesity, heart disease, diabetic problem in this country?
I’m a libertarian at heart. But nutrition is definitely one area of our lives where we could use a bit of governmental paternalism. These obese people, and even the ones that do not appear obese, but consume this crap, are costing us all money. All of us.
We can argue ad nauseum that you should be free to consume what you desire and I’d agree…up to the point where I finance the fucking outcome of your decisions. Presently, this country finances the bad diet decisions of our peers. [/quote]
You mean like the good old government paternalism that brought us the lipid hypothesis, deadly cholesterol lowering drugs, transfats instead of coconut oil for popcorn and HFCS in just about anything because they subsidize the shit out of corn?
Awesome plan bro, what could possibly go wrong !?![/quote]
I suggest you read and consider my follow up comments. I stated none of the above.
Nope, didn’t misunderstand the term, thank you. In fact, a few posts back I even suggested that education and reward are the way to go. However, it need not solely be “Government Paternalism”. Gov’t at all levels already spends millions on public service announcements.
Right now in my area, there is a campaign against teen drinking/partying going on (state govt). In one ad they go on about how parents who drink set a bad example for their children (father watching some game says “Johnnie, go get me a beer”). Talks about how you don’t need to drink to have a good time.
Next ad has a bunch of teens talking about how the drunk kid ruined the night out, then goes on to explain HOW to go party (pace yourself, it says). So, what’s the message? What about when government decides to ‘educate’ the public on morality that goes against what you teach your kids at home? Do you still support it?
Sure sick/uninsured people are a strain on the healthcare system, but they didn’t create the current healthcare system, so once again, you want to save/fix healthcare, then solve the right problem.
One thing is for sure, give an inch, take a mile. Government should be worrying about other things.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Did you even understand at first what I meant when I said “paternalism” (in the form of nudges, incentives and good choice architecture)? I never mentioned “government intervention” in the vein you and others are imagining it.
[/quote]
Lifelong Libertarian here. Sounds like you’ve read Thaler and Sunstein or have been influenced by someone who has.
Edit - you see, when the government even has incentive to ‘nudge’, it will inevitably overstep it’s boundary, or grow beyond what was meant. Look at every.single.government.program.or.idea.
Limited government has turned into intrusive government. Nudge devolves in coercion. History.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Nope, didn’t misunderstand the term, thank you. In fact, a few posts back I even suggested that education and reward are the way to go. However, it need not solely be “Government Paternalism”. Gov’t at all levels already spends millions on public service announcements.
Right now in my area, there is a campaign against teen drinking/partying going on (state govt). In one ad they go on about how parents who drink set a bad example for their children (father watching some game says “Johnnie, go get me a beer”). Talks about how you don’t need to drink to have a good time.
Next ad has a bunch of teens talking about how the drunk kid ruined the night out, then goes on to explain HOW to go party (pace yourself, it says). So, what’s the message? What about when government decides to ‘educate’ the public on morality that goes against what you teach your kids at home? Do you still support it?
Sure sick/uninsured people are a strain on the healthcare system, but they didn’t create the current healthcare system, so once again, you want to save/fix healthcare, then solve the right problem.
One thing is for sure, give an inch, take a mile. Government should be worrying about other things.[/quote]
Okay, but again, you’re making an argument about “bad government”, not proper choice architecture and nudges. And I only used healthcare as ONE example. There are many hidden costs in our economy from the obesity problem, one of which is litigation (like that mentioned herein) for example and work productivity. We can throw in social security disability and on the very back end, “elder care” for those infirm from chronic disease at an earlier relative age. I can continue with the not so apparent costs if you’d like, but I’m sure with a bit more thought, you can cover it as well as I. And let’s not forget what’s happening to our children RIGHT NOW.
Did you know that something as simple as good choice architecture in a school cafeteria influences what a child will and will not eat (it works on you too)? Right there, with CHILDREN, I’ve given you an example of the type of paternalism I’m talking about and you didn’t even have to remove the junk food from the cafeteria. The children still have choice, but will make BETTER choices depending on choice architecture.
What we do know is this: What we are doing is NOT working. Our children are becoming FAT at an alarming rate (all those little pubescent BBs notwithstanding, who are just carrying around so much lean muscle the standards don’t apply to them 
)
You mentioned fix healthcare. Well, it can’t be fixed, or even subsidized, without significant cost to you or I. Whatever that cost is, however it is subsidized or paid for, it COSTS MORE because of our obesity problem. So we’d be inclined to fix it. I don’t have to lecture you, or anyone else on this site, that our top debilitating diseases are diseases of the metabolism. DIET.
While we’re on the subject of “bad government”, good government has been successful with “nudges”. You mentioned drunk driving ads. Research Texas’ “don’t mess with texas” campaign. It was a “stop littering” campaign tailored to the younger texan demographic that was doing most of the littering (and was most resistant to change based on prior campaigns). The “don’t mess with texas” campaign was a huge success.
Thank you for at least thoughtfully considering my clarification without further clouding the subject. I’m sure those posts will follow.
Good government = good paternalism. Bad government is a separate subject having nothing to do with my point. Like it or not, paternalism is necessary in our society. We can’t fill this forum with tales of how people are “sheep” in one breath (they are) and in the next, talk about how we can’t “babysit” everyone b/c (gasp), the BBs wont’ be able to eat junk or get their supplements or be “told” what to put in their bodies! Humans are not entirely rational. They require guidance. Nowhere is this more evident than in our necessary laws and what people are doing to their bodies.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Did you even understand at first what I meant when I said “paternalism” (in the form of nudges, incentives and good choice architecture)? I never mentioned “government intervention” in the vein you and others are imagining it.
[/quote]
Lifelong Libertarian here. Sounds like you’ve read Thaler and Sunstein or have been influenced by someone who has.
[/quote]
Yes. But it’s a lifelong interest of mine. Remember, my brother is a professor at an ivy league school and he’s involved in this stuff too and has been published (he’s a professor and scientist). It’s been an interest of mine and it’s VERY enlightening. Understanding the subject matter can greatly improve your life, your decisions and your understanding of what makes people tick, the latter of which is of particular interest to me.
Yes, I read “Nudge” and that’s why I used the term. However, I’ve been studying this stuff ever since my brother started his research many years ago.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Did you even understand at first what I meant when I said “paternalism” (in the form of nudges, incentives and good choice architecture)? I never mentioned “government intervention” in the vein you and others are imagining it.
[/quote]
Lifelong Libertarian here. Sounds like you’ve read Thaler and Sunstein or have been influenced by someone who has.
Edit - you see, when the government even has incentive to ‘nudge’, it will inevitably overstep it’s boundary, or grow beyond what was meant. Look at every.single.government.program.or.idea.
Limited government has turned into intrusive government. Nudge devolves in coercion. History.
[/quote]
Again, you’re talking bad government.
Instead of arguing bad government, how do you see correcting the problem? And who would administer and/or deliver the corrections? Or do we do nothing? Because the latter is a brilliant fucking idea. I can’t wait to receive the bill.
Stop confusing bad government with my point. Bad government is a separate discussion. We obviously cannot do nothing. Do you want examples of “doing nothing”?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Did you even understand at first what I meant when I said “paternalism” (in the form of nudges, incentives and good choice architecture)? I never mentioned “government intervention” in the vein you and others are imagining it.
[/quote]
Lifelong Libertarian here. Sounds like you’ve read Thaler and Sunstein or have been influenced by someone who has.
[/quote]
Yes. But it’s a lifelong interest of mine. Remember, my brother is a professor at an ivy league school and he’s involved in this stuff too and has been published (he’s a professor and scientist). It’s been an interest of mine and it’s VERY enlightening. Understanding the subject matter can greatly improve your life, your decisions and your understanding of what makes people tick, the latter of which is of particular interest to me.
Yes, I read “Nudge” and that’s why I used the term. However, I’ve been studying this stuff ever since my brother started his research many years ago. [/quote]
I get what you’re saying. I don’t have to agree with it 100%.
I get Libertarian philosophy. (trust me on this)
I am familiar with “Nudge”.
I don’t have or need Ivy League siblings to understand this philosophy or to understand the problems of the healthcare system.
I don’t have to agree with the philosophy 100%.
I still think the original examples were ridiculous.
Now, what ever happened to posting things about retarded fat people?
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Did you even understand at first what I meant when I said “paternalism” (in the form of nudges, incentives and good choice architecture)? I never mentioned “government intervention” in the vein you and others are imagining it.
[/quote]
Lifelong Libertarian here. Sounds like you’ve read Thaler and Sunstein or have been influenced by someone who has.
[/quote]
Yes. But it’s a lifelong interest of mine. Remember, my brother is a professor at an ivy league school and he’s involved in this stuff too and has been published (he’s a professor and scientist). It’s been an interest of mine and it’s VERY enlightening. Understanding the subject matter can greatly improve your life, your decisions and your understanding of what makes people tick, the latter of which is of particular interest to me.
Yes, I read “Nudge” and that’s why I used the term. However, I’ve been studying this stuff ever since my brother started his research many years ago. [/quote]
I get what you’re saying. I don’t have to agree with it 100%.
I get Libertarian philosophy. (trust me on this)
I am familiar with “Nudge”.
I don’t have or need Ivy League siblings to understand this philosophy or to understand the problems of the healthcare system.
I don’t have to agree with the philosophy 100%.
I still think the original examples were ridiculous.
Now, what ever happened to posting things about retarded fat people?[/quote]
God I fucking hate this place sometimes.
Really dude?
I didn’t ask for your agreement. And I just explained to you that my interest, or knowledge on the subject didn’t just pop out of a recently read book. I shared a personal experience with you about how my interest in the topic started.
smfh
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Did you even understand at first what I meant when I said “paternalism” (in the form of nudges, incentives and good choice architecture)? I never mentioned “government intervention” in the vein you and others are imagining it.
[/quote]
Lifelong Libertarian here. Sounds like you’ve read Thaler and Sunstein or have been influenced by someone who has.
[/quote]
Yes. But it’s a lifelong interest of mine. Remember, my brother is a professor at an ivy league school and he’s involved in this stuff too and has been published (he’s a professor and scientist). It’s been an interest of mine and it’s VERY enlightening. Understanding the subject matter can greatly improve your life, your decisions and your understanding of what makes people tick, the latter of which is of particular interest to me.
Yes, I read “Nudge” and that’s why I used the term. However, I’ve been studying this stuff ever since my brother started his research many years ago. [/quote]
I get what you’re saying. I don’t have to agree with it 100%.
I get Libertarian philosophy. (trust me on this)
I am familiar with “Nudge”.
I don’t have or need Ivy League siblings to understand this philosophy or to understand the problems of the healthcare system.
I don’t have to agree with the philosophy 100%.
I still think the original examples were ridiculous.
Now, what ever happened to posting things about retarded fat people?[/quote]
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Did you even understand at first what I meant when I said “paternalism” (in the form of nudges, incentives and good choice architecture)? I never mentioned “government intervention” in the vein you and others are imagining it.
[/quote]
Lifelong Libertarian here. Sounds like you’ve read Thaler and Sunstein or have been influenced by someone who has.
[/quote]
Yes. But it’s a lifelong interest of mine. Remember, my brother is a professor at an ivy league school and he’s involved in this stuff too and has been published (he’s a professor and scientist). It’s been an interest of mine and it’s VERY enlightening. Understanding the subject matter can greatly improve your life, your decisions and your understanding of what makes people tick, the latter of which is of particular interest to me.
Yes, I read “Nudge” and that’s why I used the term. However, I’ve been studying this stuff ever since my brother started his research many years ago. [/quote]
I get what you’re saying. I don’t have to agree with it 100%.
I get Libertarian philosophy. (trust me on this)
I am familiar with “Nudge”.
I don’t have or need Ivy League siblings to understand this philosophy or to understand the problems of the healthcare system.
I don’t have to agree with the philosophy 100%.
I still think the original examples were ridiculous.
Now, what ever happened to posting things about retarded fat people?[/quote]
God I fucking hate this place sometimes.
Really dude?
I didn’t ask for your agreement. And I just explained to you that my interest, or knowledge on the subject didn’t just pop out of a recently read book. I shared a personal experience with you about how my interest in the topic started.
smfh
[/quote]
Chillax, my friend. Don’t shake your head- shake a Martini.
Oh, yeah, forgot…
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Oh, yeah, forgot…[/quote]