TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 30, 2010 13:40:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 30, 2010 13:49:51 GMT -5
The best response to any slippery slope argument is common sense. There is virtually nothing that a government does that cannot be criticized by a slippery slope argument. After the Iraq War, one could simply say NoKo is next or Eye-Ran is next, and most reasonable people would tell you to get lost. After HCR, one could say and have said that we're going to have Armageddon and Communism. We have a word for such folks - lunatics.
Here, I am not sure there is any reason to believe that some parade of horribles will occur except some personal belief or suspicion that such is inevitable from government intervention. In some cases, such suspicion is warranted, but most of these arguments lead to the slippery slope discussed above.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on May 1, 2010 12:10:08 GMT -5
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on May 1, 2010 12:40:53 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 1, 2010 14:50:41 GMT -5
Time to call in Tad Spangler.
You hear that? Streudel Sucking Globenheimer.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on May 2, 2010 19:49:52 GMT -5
To the earlier analogy of the government limiting the amount of beer you drink, its not that at all. I don't see anything where you can't eat as much salty food you want or put more salt on you food yourself (I do this for about every meal).
The better analogy would be limits on maximum alcohol content in beer, which some states already do. And even then its hard to work up too much anger. I have a case of Sam Adams Imperial White in my fridge that a friend bought me and that is nasty. If the government wants to take that away I won't be taking up arms against the beer stasi any time soon over that.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on May 2, 2010 21:55:00 GMT -5
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on May 6, 2010 11:35:17 GMT -5
To the earlier analogy of the government limiting the amount of beer you drink, its not that at all. I don't see anything where you can't eat as much salty food you want or put more salt on you food yourself (I do this for about every meal). The better analogy would be limits on maximum alcohol content in beer, which some states already do. And even then its hard to work up too much anger. I have a case of Sam Adams Imperial White in my fridge that a friend bought me and that Edited is nasty. If the government wants to take that away I won't be taking up arms against the beer stasi any time soon over that. This is a good analogy. Sodium though isn't necessarily just salt, but could be from any sort of condiment - any seasoning, ketchup, mustard, hot sauce, etc. If there's not enough for you, I suppose you could always tack on more, separately. However, I would be against placing a limit on maximum alcohol content in beer if it was as low as, say, 10% ABV, because I do enjoy some strong beers. I like most Sam Adams beers, but yes, the Imperial White wasn't very good. Brooklyn Chocolate Stout and Dogfish Head 90 minute IPA are two of my favorites that are at 10% or above. I would hate it if these weren't allowed to be sold in my area. Just warn people of the dangers. For that reason, I think that the ABV should be on the label of every beer, and maybe a small warning label for those with ridiculously high ABVs. Not as big of a deal as food high in sodium because there are only a few beers that have this "problem," and a select few that drink them, but that's how I would handle it.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 6, 2010 12:46:53 GMT -5
The better analogy would be limits on maximum alcohol content in beer, which some states already do. And even then its hard to work up too much anger. Umm, try living in Utah for a while and see how much you like it.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 13, 2010 18:18:56 GMT -5
Are we going to require all children's body mass index to be tracked? Big brother grows by leaps and bounds - until the next election? cnsnews.com/news/article/65781
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on May 13, 2010 19:23:51 GMT -5
Look a few posts up at the article I posted. Childhood obesity is now so bad that it's a legitimate national security threat.
Like it or not, obese Americans are a major burden on the rest of the country. Besides limiting the effectiveness of our military, they also take up an obscenely disproportionate part of our limited health care resources. Obama isn't the reason we're going to have to start rationing health care sooner or later - it's the fact that fat people are using up so much of our limited health care resources that there isn't enough to go around for the rest of us!
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 13, 2010 19:28:25 GMT -5
meh i'm ok with that they're not putting names to data they're just tracking obesity trends. I mean at physicals you get your height and weight measured as it is at minimum. I'm sure many pediatricians calculate BMI of their patients as it is. I'm glad to see the government is doing something about he obesity epidemic. And yes it is an epidemic and it is one of the things that's driving up health care costs. Greatly reducing obesity and encouraging healthy lifestyles in america would go a long way in reducing the amount spent on health care.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 13, 2010 20:28:31 GMT -5
If I'm good and have my vegetables, will Daddy government let me have a Twinkie at the end of the week?
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 13, 2010 21:27:43 GMT -5
If I'm good and have my vegetables, will Daddy government let me have a Twinkie at the end of the week? I'm going to assume you left out the if not then i don't know what to tell you.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on May 14, 2010 6:50:32 GMT -5
I'm glad to see the government is doing something about he obesity epidemic. Why?
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 14, 2010 7:05:03 GMT -5
Um why not?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 14, 2010 8:35:06 GMT -5
Because it's not their job, that's why not. You'd have to stretch "promote the general welfare" beyond the realm of credibility to justify it. Or maybe we'll just follow Nancy's advice and throw it under interstate commerce, like everything else. Also, because the federal government -- which in many areas exists in perpetual "justify my existence" mode -- never lets go of anything once it has a hold on it. I find it interesting that they are going to analyse the data for variances in gender and socioeconomic status. Sounds like they may be asking for just a little bit more than "raw data" after all. If the government wants to encourage healthy living, that's fine. And, as I've said before, I don't have any problem with making sure nutritional information is disclosed for all foods. But the government should not be regulating healthy living. Whenever "government" replaces "parenting" or "personal responsibility," I get very nervous. Speaking of which, this is not the federal government, per se (though they did have a huge role in making these bans happen), but going back to the original dumbass government regulation -- smoking -- I'm wondering.....if it can be demonstrated that the effects of secondhand smoking have been exaggerated beyond any level of accuracy, will state or local governments consider lifting smoking bans? www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23399/Scientific_Evidence_Shows_Secondhand_Smoke_Is_No_Danger.htmlSomehow, I think not.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 14, 2010 9:22:48 GMT -5
I just said that the government should do something about the obesity epidemic. I didn't say what that thing should be. But jgalt disagreed with the notion that it would be the good for the government to do something about the obesity epidemic. They absolutely need to do something, whether that's through incentives, education, or whatever. www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/economics.htmlObesity is a major problem in this country and costs us a lot of money and not only that it's costing people their lives. There needs to be education, there needs to be incentives to live a healthier live, and there needs to be help offered for people who want to change their habits. I never said I wanted the government to mandate that people lose weight or eat healthier. I don't think you can mandate something exactly like that. But I do think mandating certain things like smoking bans, helmet and seat belt laws are a good thing.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on May 14, 2010 10:08:42 GMT -5
They absolutely need to do something, whether that's through incentives, education, or whatever. Why? And not why does something need to be done about obesity (I can see that people are fat) but why does the government have to be the one to do it?
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on May 14, 2010 10:15:07 GMT -5
I think mandatory monitoring of BMI doesn't mean the government is regulating healthy living. It's not taking the place of the parent, it's just giving parents additional information. People think that obese is just one of those things that we know when we see it, but that's not always the case with kids. I think a lot of parents of obese American children don't know their kid is obese. Mandatory monitoring of BMI is a way to inform them of what's really going on and help them take preventative action before it's too late. And this goes way beyond promoting the general welfare - it's a legitimate national security threat: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/29/AR2010042903669.html (same article I posted earlier). Right now our military is totally exhausted and undermanned. We simply don't have the troops we need to take on a lot of potential national security threats (Iran, North Korea, extra troops in Afghanistan). There's a lot of reasons we don't have enough troops, but one of the big ones is that 27% of young American adults are obese, and thus unfit to serve in the military. Obesity is the #1 medical reason why people who want to enlist in our military are turned away, and I'm sure there are a lot more obese kids who want to join the military but don't even bother trying to enlist because they know they're too fat.
|
|