Agree/Disagree: "Governments should make obesity a crime"

  • 115 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for tsciallsolle3451
TSciallsolle3451

999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Poll: Agree/Disagree: "Governments should make obesity a crime" (127 votes)

Agree, obesity should be treated as a crime 16%
Disagree, obesity should NOT be treated as a crime 84%

In case any dumbass thinks this is a bait thread, I will list down my carefully thought reasons why this proposal can actually be helpful.

The Whys

  1. Productivity. Obese people are correlated with low levels of productivity. By discouraging obesity, people would be more productive.
  2. Increase quality of life. People out of fear, will learn to live healthier lives instead of gorging themselves (Think America) silly.
  3. Increase happiness. Studies have shown that some people overeat due to depression. The government should keep the people busy instead of eating.
  4. Shut up the mouths of those government detractors who cry wolf on every instance of "political correctness". Since this act is rather "politically incorrect", they would learn that the government isn't politically correct and be satisfied.

The Hows of Implementation

  • Of course, there are different severity levels or categories of crime. Obviously, it goes without saying that obesity, if it ever becomes a crime, should be treated as a minor offence.
  • Enact a new law that requires everyone who is of a certain minimum age and mentally sound, to go for medical checkups once a year and measure their weight.
  • Whoever is deemed obese by various methods of measures, will be fined a certain amount of money - a disincentive to stop people from spending money on more food.
  • Tax sugar and trans-fats products heavily.

Alternative

  • If it is non-feasible to make obesity a crime, perhaps the government can resort to a "carrot" instead of "stick" approach.
  • Whoever is within the "healthy" range of an optional yearly medical checkup would be given vouchers for purchasing health products.

Your opinions?

What do you think? Discuss.

 • 
Avatar image for pensembodiment
PensEmbodiment

7

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for pensembodiment
PensEmbodiment

7

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for pensembodiment
PensEmbodiment

7

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for pensembodiment
PensEmbodiment

7

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for pensembodiment
PensEmbodiment

7

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

plz no

Avatar image for pensembodiment
PensEmbodiment

7

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for baph
baph

3294

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for buttersdaman000
buttersdaman000

23487

Forum Posts

60

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Nah, but maybe stop accommodating them. I used to work at a disabled/adapted rec center in college. Over the months I worked there, I absorbed some of the issues they had in their daily lives. One of the most prevalent was a lack of available disabled parking spots. Some of them had to park at the end of of the lot to get to our weekly sport events, which sucked for them especially in the winter. Why were so many spots being taken up? Fat people. People too fat to walk more than 50 yards so they take spots from people who's legs literally don't work. Kind of messed up IMO.

Avatar image for rockette
Rockette

6912

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dernman:

This specifically, yes. No I'm not fat. Technically I'm obese because of muscle mass and a large frame. Several people I know are "obese" because of thyroid problems, genetics, etc. Making FAT PEOPLE illegal is the dumbest s**t I've ever heard. This should be locked. Period.

Avatar image for dernman
Dernman

26665

Forum Posts

10082

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

#110  Edited By Dernman

@rockette: Well then that's just dumb outrage culture. Like I said the thread question is stupid, unreasonable and see no good reason why it should have been made but it has been and it's the same about it being locked..

You're not the only one who has "obese friends" or had struggles of their own so lets not try and take some moral authority here.

It also breaks no rule.and we need to stop locking threads willy nilly. You got a point about thyroid problems so make that point instead of calling for a lock. If you don't want to make a point and you don't like the topic then don't go into the thread. Seriously come one.

It's just a conversation.

Avatar image for king-ragnar
King-Ragnar

5495

Forum Posts

79

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

No, but teaching people the dangers of being severely obese would be good.

Avatar image for dernman
Dernman

26665

Forum Posts

10082

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

#112  Edited By Dernman

No, but teaching people the dangers of being severely obese would be good.

I think everyone already knows that to be honest. I think people should be encouraged to get more exercise though. as that's something more of having to be constantly reminded of.

Also maybe schools focus a bit on nutrition in their health classes. Also a thing to think about is all the shit they put into our food. Much of that shit today makes us fatter. A person years ago could eat the same shit they do today, with the same physical activity but wouldn't gain the same amount they do now. The preservatives, the hormones, the other shit. It's no joke.

Avatar image for buttersdaman000
buttersdaman000

23487

Forum Posts

60

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#113  Edited By buttersdaman000

Why are people so sensitive about giving fat people tough love?? lmao

Also, blaming your obesity on genetics, or even arguing it's the primary cause, is simply you removing all personal responsibility. It'd be like getting pulled over for a DUI and then blaming it on the alcoholism that runs in your family. There are genes that make it easier to gain weight, while making it harder to lose the weight as well. There are even genes that make food more appealing to some people. However, those genes don't make you sit there and get fast food 10 times a week, nor do they limit your exercise to a few lazy 30 min elliptical sessions every other month.

Avatar image for lord_tenebrous
Lord_Tenebrous

3116

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Of course not. The government has no business there.

Avatar image for thehercules
TheHercules

2032

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Fat acceptance is a health crisis in denial!

OT: No

Avatar image for elsebbe
ElSebbe

1059

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

No, but teaching people the dangers of being severely obese would be good.

Majority of people still eat.

Avatar image for ghostodoofus2
Ghostodoofus2

3075

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@tsciallsolle3451: No! They're not harming and it's no one else's damn business if one is obese.

Avatar image for buckwheat
Buckwheat

2916

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#119  Edited By Buckwheat

Well, sort of. Maybe not ilegall but for sure to have laws against obesity and, above all, what causes it.

This would actually save a lot of lives.

Of course it could not be implemented right away. First it would be necessary to make sugar available only to adults, like tabaco and alcohol.

I mean why are we feeding our children something prooved by science to be unhealthy and addictive, just like tabaco and alcohol?

Then after 10 or 15 years of educating the people, a law could be presented making overweight not suitable for everywhere. Just like smokers can't smoke everywhere.

One step at a time.

But the idea presented in OP is not as crazy as it sounds.

Avatar image for mutant1230
Mutant1230

7422

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#120  Edited By Mutant1230

Well, sort of. Maybe not ilegall but for sure to have laws against obesity and, above all, what causes it.

This would actually save a lot of lives.

Of course it could not be implemented right away. First it would be necessary to make sugar available only to adults, like tabaco and alcohol.

I mean why are we feeding our children something prooved by science to be unhealthy and addictive, just like tabaco and alcohol?

Then after 10 or 15 years of educating the people, a law could be presented making overweight not suitable for everywhere. Just like smokers can't smoke everywhere.

One step at a time.

But the idea presented in OP is not as crazy as it sounds.

Science has actually proven that sugar isn't addictive like tobacco or alcohol, and while it does contribute to obesity, you can't label it as the sole cause. Weight gain is caused by simply consuming more calories than you burn off, and overeating can happen with just about any food that's pleasurable to eat.

Banning one food and expecting that to curb obesity is just not backed up by any valid evidence. The closest "law" against obesity that's shown results is taxing people by waist measurement/body weight like they do in Japan, where overweight people are in addition monitored and offered support until they're once again of healthy weight. Obesity is a complicated issue and the solution has to be something nuanced that gets to the root of it, just scapegoating one thing and calling it a day will maybe have short term benefits at best, but if history has shown us anything won't change much

Avatar image for buckwheat
Buckwheat

2916

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#121  Edited By Buckwheat

@mutant1230:

Science has actually proven that sugar isn't addictive like tobacco or alcohol, and while it does contribute to obesity, you can't label it as the sole cause.

Come back to me when you can succesfully go for a whole year without consuming sugar. Then we'll see how hard it is to get over it.

Weight gain is caused by simply consuming more calories than you burn off, and overeating can happen with just about any food that's pleasurable to eat.

Yes, that is true. However not all foods provide the same ammount of empty calories. To put an example, avocado has a lot of calories, but it is nutricious, whereas chips give a lot of calories with almost no nutrition qualities. The later is more harmfull than the first.

Bad calories
Bad calories
Good Calories
Good Calories

There are several groups of foods that the ban should extend to.

It could be resumen in three categories:

1.) Sugar

2.) Refined flour and pastries

3.) Junk Food

Stop eating that and you are garanteed to loose weigh. Ad to that some excercise and you got a winning combo.

Banning one food and expecting that to curb obesity is just not backed up by any valid evidence. The closest "law" against obesity that's shown results is taxing people by waist measurement/body weight like they do in Japan, where overweight people are in addition monitored and offered support until they're once again of healthy weight. Obesity is a complicated issue and the solution has to be something nuanced that gets to the root of it, just scapegoating one thing and calling it a day will maybe have short term benefits at best, but if history has shown us anything won't change much.

Mmyeah.... I'm thinking it over and making fat a crime is not the best way to do it.

I do think the government has a responability to the unhealthy way people eat, and above all, the unhealthy food that is offered in stores, restaurants, etc. So I do think it would be a good idea to do something about it from a guvernamental standpoint.

Tax the places that sell, ban some foods (specially for children) and educate the people. That's probably the way to go.

Avatar image for mutant1230
Mutant1230

7422

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@buckwheat:

Come back to me when you can succesfully go for a whole year without consuming sugar. Then we'll see how hard it is to get over it.

I worded that poorly, let me rephrase. Sugar itself is not uniquely addicting so much as food is addicting. Salt, fat, meat, etc, pretty much any food group that tastes good or is pleasurable to consume can be considered addicting. Obviously giving up all sugar cold turkey isn't easy but neither is giving up any other food you like to eat.

Yes, that is true. However not all foods provide the same ammount of empty calories. To put an example, avocado has a lot of calories, but it is nutricious, whereas chips give a lot of calories with almost no nutrition qualities. The later is more harmfull than the first.

Good point. Avocados are definitely more nutritious than Potato Chips or any other similar example. Being able to balance your macros and micros is essential to counting calories in a sustainable and healthy way. My response to that would be though that vitamin deficiency isn't a problem in the United States/Europe so much so as obesity is. When it comes to simply losing weight calories are ultimately the main focus, and that's where fat taxes instead of banning foods come into play. If someone is able to balance their nutritional needs while still maintaining a caloric deficit, they're free to enjoy themselves by eating junk food, and if they can't, they're taxed until they find a way to make it work.

It could be resumen in three categories:

1.) Sugar

2.) Refined flour and pastries

3.) Junk Food

Stop eating that and you are garanteed to loose weigh. Ad to that some excercise and you got a winning combo.

They might lose weight at the beginning, but if we continue to focus on certain foods instead of calories themselves weight loss will plateau at some point, or worse it'll rise again. Here's a list of the top 10 food groups that are contributing the most calories to the American diet. Pastries is #1 so banning that like you suggested would probably decrease calories, but there would still be Bread, Chicken, Pasta, Mexican Food, and Beef contributing significant amounts of calories to most people's diets.

The rise of obesity has a lot to do with stress eating, expanding portion sizes, boredom, convenience, etc. These factors will continue to exist even with pastries being taken off the market, since people will start binge eat while they're feeling overwhelmed and overeat trying to finish their large plate of food. This is why I think the best course of action is getting to the root of the problem, banning unhealthy foods is just putting a band aid on it.

Mmyeah.... I'm thinking it over and making fat a crime is not the best way to do it.

I do think the government has a responability to the unhealthy way people eat, and above all, the unhealthy food that is offered in stores, restaurants, etc. So I do think it would be a good idea to do something about it from a guvernamental standpoint.

Tax the places that sell, ban some foods (specially for children) and educate the people. That's probably the way to go.

But what can banning food do that an obesity tax couldn't? With the latter, people will be able to eat whatever they want and so long as it doesn't cause obesity it won't contribute to the problem and they won't be taxed. Education on healthy eating is a really good idea too, especially for children as part of a school curriculum so they have the knowledge to make these choices for themselves. Set up an entire generation of people educated on nutrition and that's how real progress can be made