R.I.P. The Right to Choose (Beginning of time - 2008)

[SuperBowser]

So what? When did it become the government's job to protect you from yourself? If you don't want to wear your seatbelt and risk an untimely death, when did that become Congress's problem?

Then don't expect society to tolerate you driving on the roads, getting any form of cheap insurance or getting any healthcare from your needless life threatening injury then...

 

[M.K]

We are comparing cupcakes to seatbelts O_O We've truly gone insane.
I just think this whole thing is absurd. Being a high school student myself, I can tell you that almost nobody in the class would be interested or even care if they showed you what was in the food you are eating. As soon as you bite into another cheeseburger (which, on average, have about FOUR pubic hairs in them) you totally forget whatever the hell they taught you.

 

[Omis]

We are comparing cupcakes to seatbelts O_O We've truly gone insane.
I just think this whole thing is absurd. Being a high school student myself, I can tell you that almost nobody in the class would be interested or even care if they showed you what was in the food you are eating. As soon as you bite into another cheeseburger (which, on average, have about FOUR pubic hairs in them) you totally forget whatever the hell they taught you.

Could we have some sources on that?

 

[M.K]

Could we have some sources on that?

http://www.ecollo.com/post/2007/12/Would-you-like-pubic-hair-with-your-cheeseburger.aspx

And my Biology teacher told me, but I guess you can't trust what they say as fact.

TL: Don't Care version:

There are things in some of the food we eat and products we use that is just straight up....nasty.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Then don't expect society to tolerate you driving on the roads, getting any form of cheap insurance or getting any healthcare from your needless life threatening injury then...

Fine! That's exactly how you should respond. It's not for the government to make me wear my seatbelt, and it's not for them to take care of me if I don't. Whatever injury I sustain as a result of my own stupidity is well-deserved, but it's still MY CHOICE to be stupid if I want to be.

 

[Peeze]

So what? When did it become the government's job to protect you from yourself? If you don't want to wear your seatbelt and risk an untimely death, when did that become Congress's problem?

When they have to clean you up off of the highway. When ambulances get tied up with your stupidity rather than legitimate calls.

 

[trademark0013]

the seatbelt situation is different because with obesity, its a result of lifestyle choices. seatbelt is you do or you dont. its not like the more you dont wear it, the more unsafe you become over time, like with eating unhealthy food or not exercising.

and the seatbelt law isnt that big a deal to comply with.

 

[marthanoob]

This is an argument on whether or not to make obesity a public health issue. Considering the surprising statistics relating to it, I would. I'm not saying we should ban the food, maybe kick the tax up.

 

[Deleted member]

If you or your passenger aren't wearing a seatbelt, you can easily become a projectile and smash right through the window. If this happens on a highway, your corpse becomes a dangerous hazard to other drivers.

 

[cman]

To add an alternate angle to this, the government isn't so much saying you can't wear a seatbelt, but rather forcing you to help pay for their bills when you (or others) don't wear the seatbelts (it is irrelavent imo what the fine money is actually used for). In essence, you could be considered to be paying for a service.

 

[RDK]

If you or your passenger aren't wearing a seatbelt, you can easily become a projectile and smash right through the window. If this happens on a highway, your corpse becomes a dangerous hazard to other drivers.

At first I laughed at this, and then I pictured it in my mind.

To add an alternate angle to this, the government isn't so much saying you can't wear a seatbelt, but rather forcing you to help pay for their bills when you (or others) don't wear the seatbelts (it is irrelavent imo what the fine money is actually used for). In essence, you could be considered to be paying for a service.

I suppose you could almost consider roads to be a public service that's technically paid for by the government for our use (via our money, though), so it kind of makes sense that certain government rules and regulations should apply.

Still though, it's not the government's duty to keep people from doing stupid things. There's a lot of good that comes out of letting people die of stupidity. Like allowing dumb people to die off and not pass on their dumb genes, dooming the subsequent generation.

 

[pockyD]

the real culprit is teachers trying to keep kids from making fun of each other

if kids could call each other "fatties" with no recourse, they would be self-motivated to keep their fatness down

 

[Peeze]

Or lead to depression, and/or an increase in emo kids.

 

[MojoMan]

This whole situation is rather ridiculous. I can imagine the scene right now with some Girl couts selling cookies on a sidewalk
Cop car stops by
"Hello mister, want some cookies?"
"Mam, we're gonna half to see some ID."
"What's that?"
"TAKE 'EM DOWN BOYS! SWARM! SWARM! WE"RE GONNA NEED 3 MORE TEAMS!"

 

[RDK]

Or lead to depression, and/or an increase in emo kids.

Well in that case we would just institute anti-emo laws and throw every goth-looking kid into the slammer. That leaves us with just depressed people, a category basically everyone falls under nowadays.

 

[MasterWarlord]

There are far better ways to do this. . .Why not actually serve healthy food in the cafeteria and ban home lunches? If they REALLY want to force us to eat healthy. . .That makes a lot more sense then banning bake sales. Bake sales are just a one time thing, they need to crack down on things that happen more regularly. Getting rid of soda machines and only having gatorade available is reasonable as one can regularly get a soda at any time from these machines.

 

[Mr.Fakeman]

The government banning home lunches, hmmm..... I think for Schools that have students buying canteen food more than students packing lunch. I say just serving healthy food would be enough really, of course it would be different if there we less students being canteen dependant. I mean, in my school (AUS) the people that bother to acutally eat during their break times are more of canteen students. But! on the other hand, there is an option of packing 'healthy' lunch from home.

 

[Lore]

Of course, the main problem with this is not the fact that they are trying to stop people selling unhealthy food, but the fact that the schools themselves aren't changing anything at all, it seems, in their own food that they provide to the students.

Most of the stuff at my school is very unhealthy, and some of it is even worse than mcdonalds food. When they try to keep preaching "Healthy food in school!" and then can't even practice what they preach, I start to have my doubts about the ability of the leaders of the school system.

Not only that, but this whole obesity campaign against schools is rather ridiculous. Most of the unhealthy things that people eat that make them fat are at HOME, not at schools. I'm not sure about other schools, but mine doesn't seem to enjoy trying to teach people to make decent choices. The biggest thing they do is put up a poster saying, "Got milk?" or stuff like that.

 

[Aesir]

There are far better ways to do this. . .Why not actually serve healthy food in the cafeteria and ban home lunches? If they REALLY want to force us to eat healthy. . .That makes a lot more sense then banning bake sales. Bake sales are just a one time thing, they need to crack down on things that happen more regularly. Getting rid of soda machines and only having gatorade available is reasonable as one can regularly get a soda at any time from these machines.

No that doesn't solve the problem either.

Like I said if they really wanted to make food healthier they would focus their attention on teaching children the proper ways of eating healthy. They could even as far as to crack down on their congressmen and say look "unhealthy food is a serious problem maybe we should higher standards of food."

Banning them at school isn't going to help the kids become less healthy, a child is only at school for 8 hours a day. The rest of their day they're bombarded with unhealthy food, if you really care you would go after the source and try to get changes that way.

 

[MasterWarlord]

No that doesn't solve the problem either.

Like I said if they really wanted to make food healthier they would focus their attention on teaching children the proper ways of eating healthy. They could even as far as to crack down on their congressmen and say look "unhealthy food is a serious problem maybe we should higher standards of food."

Banning them at school isn't going to help the kids become less healthy, a child is only at school for 8 hours a day. The rest of their day they're bombarded with unhealthy food, if you really care you would go after the source and try to get changes that way.

I don't think making them eat healthy just at school would really do anything, I was simply proposing a way to do so there that would actually work, seeing as that's what they're targeting.

How will teaching them how to eat healthy make them eat healthy? I'll stick to my fatty foods, thank you.

Yes, I agree that doing it at school doesn't really do much of anything. Speaking as a fat *** (Most wouldn't consider me "obese", just fat, but by scientific "official" standards I cross the line), most of my fat comes from when I randomly go on raids for snacks. It's not even really the meals that harm me that much. There's not much you can do to enforce that, unless you want to just start banning the sales of the vast majority of foods and put a bunch of people out of jobs who make it.

I pay no attention to my weight when I'm not on a diet, as I have a very specific one I use. It's called Isagenix and it's quite exspensive, which is why I quit it and ended up gaining back the weight eventually. All so typical. . .

 

[Mr.Fakeman]

I have the same thing at my school, if not, similar. We have the canteen walls flooded by promising jargons and flyers saying " NOW 99% fat free!" or " with Calcium!", ridiculous indeed. But we still have some junk food in our canteen, I just think about the majority of school canteens and their communities percusinating. Let alone the government, time waste! ATM this 'healthy food' propaganda is either moving ultimately slow or not moving at all.

 

[Katy Parry]

Agreed, but Childhood Obesity should really be one of the last things to worry about when dealing with the Educational system. What the hell happened to Recess?
They should just bring back Recess and focus their time on doing more background checks for teachers, updating teaching materials, and improving the educational environment.

I have to disagree. I believe helping children's weight problems is equal when it comes to education. Children learning bad eating habits at early ages can lead to adult obesity, severe depression, poor social skills, sleep apnea, diabetes, and can lead to death, of course.

Being dumb can't kill you. Obesity, however, can.

*By The Way*
This is my first debate post. And I love it.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

Personally, I feel that kids should know better. If they want to die that's their choice. I'm not saying something shouldn't be done about this, but one main reason for obesity is children not taking responsibility for their bodies and therefore becoming obese. If they'd give a ****, then they wouldn't be as over-weight.


That being said, I also think that it should be more of a parent's responsibility to watch what their kids eat then the government's. The U.S. is weird though. If one parent wants to watch their kids' eating habits more strictly than another parent does, than that is their choice and they should not allow their kids to buy/eat these foods. Health classes should also be implemented in more schools, because some kids are overweight because they aren't as informed as they should be. If parents wanted the government to parent for them then they'd give their kids to the government, but the U.S. has more important things to worry about than this.

 

[Katy Parry]

Personally, I feel that kids should know better. If they want to die that's their choice. I'm not saying something shouldn't be done about this, but one main reason for obesity is children not taking responsibility for their bodies and therefore becoming obese. If they'd give a ****, then they wouldn't be as over-weight.


That being said, I also think that it should be more of a parent's responsibility to watch what their kids eat then the government's. The U.S. is weird though. If one parent wants to watch their kids' eating habits more strictly than another parent does, than that is their choice and they should not allow their kids to buy/eat these foods. Health classes should also be implemented in more schools, because some kids are overweight because they aren't as informed as they should be. If parents wanted the government to parent for them then they'd give their kids to the government, but the U.S. has more important things to worry about than this.

A 7 year old child is never at fault. And I doubt a seven year old child realizes that candy is going to eventually make them fat.

And parents should watch what their child eat at home. But at school, it is the school's responsibilty to provide a well balanced meal. It's like going on a field trip. When a child gets lost, the school is responsible.

I highly doubt parents will go to school with their child to watch their diets.

 

[Aesir]

I don't think making them eat healthy just at school would really do anything, I was simply proposing a way to do so there that would actually work, seeing as that's what they're targeting.

How will teaching them how to eat healthy make them eat healthy? I'll stick to my fatty foods, thank you.

Then you shouldn't complain, if there's healthy alternatives and the children aren't taking advantage of it then it's their fault.

Yes, I agree that doing it at school doesn't really do much of anything. Speaking as a fat *** (Most wouldn't consider me "obese", just fat, but by scientific "official" standards I cross the line), most of my fat comes from when I randomly go on raids for snacks. It's not even really the meals that harm me that much. There's not much you can do to enforce that, unless you want to just start banning the sales of the vast majority of foods and put a bunch of people out of jobs who make it.

I pay no attention to my weight when I'm not on a diet, as I have a very specific one I use. It's called Isagenix and it's quite exspensive, which is why I quit it and ended up gaining back the weight eventually. All so typical. . .

What's the in snacks you eat though? that's what I'm saying. They put very unhealthy things in those snacks. I can't emphasize that enough, alot of synthetic stuff that your body doens't know how to process so it sticks to your body then natural ingrediants would.

Going after companies for using synthetic products in favor of higher standards would be the best course of actions.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

A 7 year old child is never at fault. And I doubt a seven year old child realizes that candy is going to eventually make them fat.

And parents should watch what their child eat at home. But at school, it is the school's responsibility to provide a well balanced meal. It's like going on a field trip. When a child gets lost, the school is responsible.

I highly doubt parents will go to school with their child to watch their diets.

For your first point, that's why I said that Health classes should be implemented in more schools, and also starting at lower ages.

The school should be responsible for selling healthier food, I agree, but parents need to establish what is/is not OK for the students at a lower age to make them aware.

Of course parents aren't going to go watch what their kids eat, I never said that, and if that's what you took from my post them I'm sorry, that's definitely not what I meant.

 

[~Peachy~]

A 7 year old child is never at fault. And I doubt a seven year old child realizes that candy is going to eventually make them fat.

And parents should watch what their child eat at home. But at school, it is the school's responsibilty to provide a well balanced meal. It's like going on a field trip. When a child gets lost, the school is responsible.

I highly doubt parents will go to school with their child to watch their diets.

I say parents should figure out when a kid is not immature anymore and has the learning capability to know what is bad for them and what is healthy. Of course, this varies between children and their parents, but there will come a time when a child crosses the boundary of "Let's let him eat junk food, he's just a kid" and will start to have limitations in their diet. Otherwise, that kid will develop heart problems, obesity, asthma, and other health problems at a relatively young age.

Although, I have to agree with "the school is responsible" part. They may be putting out some healthy options, but they're just selling junk food like there's no tomorrow! A school should know the healthy options and the not-so-healthy options for the students. Schools should also restrict the purchasing of unhealthy items at lunch. If students want them so bad, then bring them from home! School is not only a place to learn, it's a place to grow and mature.

There is an obviously a blurred line between unhealthy and healthy, but a school as a whole should decide which is which for the sake of the students.


First Debate Post! ^__^

Hmmmmm...are we just repeating the same points over and over?

 

[pockyD]

Once again, the child should want to eat healthy; otherwise, they simply won't. Why do you think kidnappers/rapists bait kids with lollipops?

We need to get rid of the "it's okay to be fat" thing. Let kids make fun of each other for being fat. Maybe even have the teachers get in on the action.

 

[~Peachy~]

I agree with the getting rid of the "it's okay to be fat" idea but making kids poke fun at fat people is crossing the line. People have committed suicide due to depression and kids making fun of them. And the TEACHERS? Teachers are supposed to be a guide, maybe even a role model to students. If teachers poke fun at them, fat kids will be even more inclined to murder themselves! We want kids to lose weightt, not kill themselves.


Unless you were making a sick joke with those last two sentences...

 

[cman]

How about this?

Along with telling kids to eat well, the gov could make a foods class that focuses on easily prepared healthy foods a mandatory middle school course?

Certainly a large part of the problem is the convenience of junk. If healthy and convenient options were made known to kids, it's likely that more would choose the healthier foods.

 

[aeghrur]

I agree with Pocky. Are you really giving kids punishment for them being fat early on? No. They're not really learning that being fat and eating sweets is bad. You have to give them punishment so they learn to stop and try to avoid the punishment. Being teased is a much better punishment than doing nothing until they get a heart attack. And only because of that MIGHT they try and stop their bad habits. Pocky's idea will have a greater effect than simply telling them what they should do and is better than letting them get a heart attack. Seriously, giving them advice for what they should do(exercise, eat right) doesn't really motivate them when the bad habits taste/feel so much better. There are some overweight people in my gym class and you would think they would be running a lot after hearing the benefits and good parts of running. What actually happens? They don't think they're fat, we can't tell them because it's harassment, they don't run and stand around, and in the end, they're still fat.

 

[pockyD]

The teacher thing was a joke... but the kid thing was less so. If we want kids to know or "think" or whatever that being fat is not socially acceptable, then they should not be socially accepted for being fat.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

How about this?

Along with telling kids to eat well, the gov could make a foods class that focuses on easily prepared healthy foods a mandatory middle school course?

Certainly a large part of the problem is the convenience of junk. If healthy and convenient options were made known to kids, it's likely that more would choose the healthier foods.

I said something like this above, that is mainly what i meant by "Health Classes." Awareness is just as important as not eating unhealthy foods, because if you don;t know what you are eating is unhealthy, then you are more likely to keep eating said food than you are of realizing it is bad and refraining from eating it.

 

[aeghrur]

If your not aware your fat, it's unlikely you would do anything about it too.

 

[pockyD]

fat kids know they're fat, and are generally ok with it when the alternative is replacing all the chocolate and chips in their diet with celery and carrots

parents tell their kids to eat certain foods because it's "good for them", but i think we all know that it rarely works out unless the parent "forces" them to eat healthy. when the parent is not around, then this option is simply not available. you can't have the teacher force-feeding the children.

and also, if a parent wants their kid to be fat for some strange reason (maybe they're the witch from hansel and gretel), does the government necessarily have the right to intervene if they're not being too overt about it? (i.e. giving them a brownie every day, not forcing them to drink a cup of lard before bed)

 

[Mr.Fakeman]

If your not aware your fat, it's unlikely you would do anything about it too.

That's why 'health awareness' has become more than essential, rather vital especially to the younger people in public. I walk around and I see so many organisations that begin specializing in weight loss with their gizmos, as far as the media is aware of people not doing what they need to do. Then doing what they 'want' to do, they put up ads that cut the effort of weight loss for people who desire losing weight without doing it the best way or manually. Exercise...

 

[Mr.Fakeman]

The way I see it is that kids want something that tastes really good, like sweet, sour(maybe), tangy(chips sorft of flavour). Generally the artifical 'main fruits' flavour like skittles, if dieticians could produce such a thing. Then kids would be more than happy to eat the healthy alternative to what taste they enjoy the best. But I cannot garuntee that this is a proper solution, more of a fantasy idea for kids who want to lose weight.

 

[aeghrur]

fat kids know they're fat, and are generally ok with it when the alternative is replacing all the chocolate and chips in their diet with celery and carrots

Hm, then make them being fat be more miserable than eating carrots and celery, or make the parents learn to freaking cook and make the celery and carrots taste better. Seriously.

parents tell their kids to eat certain foods because it's "good for them", but i think we all know that it rarely works out unless the parent "forces" them to eat healthy. when the parent is not around, then this option is simply not available. you can't have the teacher force-feeding the children.

That is true, we should make kids force them to stop eating such crappy foods by making fun of them like you suggested earlier.

and also, if a parent wants their kid to be fat for some strange reason (maybe they're the witch from hansel and gretel), does the government necessarily have the right to intervene if they're not being too overt about it? (i.e. giving them a brownie every day, not forcing them to drink a cup of lard before bed)

Nah, the government doesn't HAVE to intervene. We can just let society make them outcasts like you suggested earlier. I mean, that punishment should eventually make them either make them strive to be fit, make them get surgery, or make them suicide. I hope it's not suicide, but meh, it means less people to help pollute the earth. Lol... jk on the but part.