Trump47 Cabinet Picks & First 100 Days Agenda

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 45K
  • Politics 
If you think we’ve addressed improper nutrition, we’ll have to agree to disagree. By many measures, America is less healthy now than it’s ever been. Poor diet, poor exercise are the main two culprits.
That’s what freedom’s all about. You’re free to eat healthy or not—there are plenty of options, particularly for those with the money to pay for organic foods. And you’re free to exercise as much or as little as you’d like.

If you’re suggesting we need governmental intervention to promote healthy eating options and exercise, or that we need to somehow limit people’s freedom of choice—well, that seems a bit hypocritical coming from someone on the right, doesn’t it?
 
That’s what freedom’s all about. You’re free to eat healthy or not—there are plenty of options, particularly for those with the money to pay for organic foods. And you’re free to exercise as much or as little as you’d like.

If you’re suggesting we need governmental intervention to promote healthy eating options and exercise, or that we need to somehow limit people’s freedom of choice—well, that seems a bit hypocritical coming from someone on the right, doesn’t it?
“Rules for thee” is seemingly undefeated.
 
If you think we’ve addressed improper nutrition, we’ll have to agree to disagree. By many measures, America is less healthy now than it’s ever been. Poor diet, poor exercise are the main two culprits.
First of all, the middle sentence there is obviously laughable hyperbole. There is no metric by which one could claim that we are less healthy now than we've ever been. US life expectancy now is at least a decade longer than it was after WW2, and more than three decades longer than it was in the Reconstruction era. We may have a bigger obesity problem than we used to, but overall health is far superior than it used to be, in basically every way you want to measure it.

Second of all, it is absolutely right that poor diet and poor exercise are the main culprits in our unhealthiness, but those things are very difficult to fix because they are subject to personal choice. The government can do its best to keep particularly unhealthy things out of our food - and already does a lot of that! - but you can't stop people from choosing cheaper, calorie-dense carbs over fresh fruit and vegetables and lean meats (which tend to be more expensive). Rest assured RFK's desire to remove niche food additives will do absolutely nothing to make us healthier on the whole; contrary to what many gullible people believe, there is not some "poison" being added to our food to make us unhealthy (unless you want to count sugar and sodium, both of which are harmful in the amounts in which we consume them, which is not what RFK has been talking about).

As for exercise, you do what you can to promote healthy choices - make cities more walkable, tax gasoline and disincentivize automobile use, build parks and greenways and trails and lots of free, easily accessible spaces. But you can't force people to use those things. And, of course, that all costs tax money.
 
Agreed @rodoheel. Removing niche additives from our processed foods to address the obesity epidemic is putting a band-aid on a bullet wound. There is almost an infinite number of better ways to improve health and nutrition in our country before reaching the "crazy anti-vax guy with radically insane views on health and nutrition should help make the government even bigger in choosing what you can and can't eat" stage of problem-solving.

In a vacuum I have absolutely zero issue whatsoever with saying that we should make a more concerted effort collectively to improve nutritional standards in our country. No issue whatsoever. Where I have an issue is that Republicans always, *always*, seem to have this magical ability to 1. identify a problem and 2. do literally the very exact thing that will do nothing to actually solve the problem. We see it with guns: they think the way to curb the gun violence epidemic is to....make sure more people have more guns, and with fewer and fewer restrictions on how they can buy them and who is allowed to buy them.

If we want to make a significant difference in improving health and nutritional outcomes in our country, let's do it, by all means! But it's going to require a ton of heavy lifting- and *gasp* expenditure of taxable resources!- to get it done, which means it is a complete non-starter on the right hand side of the political aisle.
 
and the beat goes on...

I believe that this is a main reason the IC shut down the Politics board.
 
I believe that this is a main reason the IC shut down the Politics board.
If I read the FCC section in P2025 correctly (unlikely), it seems that they want to change Section 230 to prevent social media platforms from censoring protected speech. That’s quite a can of worms and would seem to invite the potential return of political speech to IC.
 
That’s what freedom’s all about. You’re free to eat healthy or not—there are plenty of options, particularly for those with the money to pay for organic foods. And you’re free to exercise as much or as little as you’d like.

If you’re suggesting we need governmental intervention to promote healthy eating options and exercise, or that we need to somehow limit people’s freedom of choice—well, that seems a bit hypocritical coming from someone on the right, doesn’t it?
No, I don’t think it’s hypocritical to think that it’s a worthy goal of government help keep harmful ingredients out of our food.
 
First of all, the middle sentence there is obviously laughable hyperbole. There is no metric by which one could claim that we are less healthy now than we've ever been. US life expectancy now is at least a decade longer than it was after WW2, and more than three decades longer than it was in the Reconstruction era. We may have a bigger obesity problem than we used to, but overall health is far superior than it used to be, in basically every way you want to measure it.

Second of all, it is absolutely right that poor diet and poor exercise are the main culprits in our unhealthiness, but those things are very difficult to fix because they are subject to personal choice. The government can do its best to keep particularly unhealthy things out of our food - and already does a lot of that! - but you can't stop people from choosing cheaper, calorie-dense carbs over fresh fruit and vegetables and lean meats (which tend to be more expensive).Rest assured RFK's desire to remove niche food additives will do absolutely nothing to make us healthier on the whole; contrary to what many gullible people believe, there is not some "poison" being added to our food to make us unhealthy (unless you want to count sugar and sodium, both of which are harmful in the amounts in which we consume them, which is not what RFK has been talking about).

As for exercise, you do what you can to promote healthy choices - make cities more walkable, tax gasoline and disincentivize automobile use, build parks and greenways and trails and lots of free, easily accessible spaces. But you can't force people to use those things. And, of course, that all costs tax money.
I was careful with my wording there and said that by “many” measures (not all), Americans are less healthy now than ever. Life expectancy is of course longer, no argument there. But obesity is up, anxiety and depression are up, and clearly there are direct linkages between these things and diet/exercise.

I agree with this sentence you typed: “The government can do its best to keep particularly unhealthy things out of our food - and already does a lot of that! - but you can't stop people from choosing cheaper, calorie-dense carbs over fresh fruit and vegetables and lean meats (which tend to be more expensive).” I would argue that I’m simply in favor of doing what you said is already happening in a lot of areas - the government doing its best to keep particularly unhealthy things out of our food. No more and no less. That doesn’t mean the onus still won’t be on individuals to make healthy choices, but the particularly bad stuff should be taken out of the ingredients altogether.
 
Regardless of what’s in Coke or a Big Mac or Doritos or Cheez Its or Pop Tarts or Frosted Flakes, none of those products are healthy foods…..they could be made fresh daily from locally sourced organic farms and they’d still be crap foods.
 
I was careful with my wording there and said that by “many” measures (not all), Americans are less healthy now than ever. Life expectancy is of course longer, no argument there. But obesity is up, anxiety and depression are up, and clearly there are direct linkages between these things and diet/exercise.

I agree with this sentence you typed: “The government can do its best to keep particularly unhealthy things out of our food - and already does a lot of that! - but you can't stop people from choosing cheaper, calorie-dense carbs over fresh fruit and vegetables and lean meats (which tend to be more expensive).” I would argue that I’m simply in favor of doing what you said is already happening in a lot of areas - the government doing its best to keep particularly unhealthy things out of our food. No more and no less. That doesn’t mean the onus still won’t be on individuals to make healthy choices, but the particularly bad stuff should be taken out of the ingredients altogether.
I still want to know who defines and how that definition of particularly unhealthy is reached. I also want some context of the cost and justification of each specific change and the priorities of them in the general overall scheme of health and government.
 
Regardless of what’s in Coke or a Big Mac or Doritos or Cheez Its or Pop Tarts or Frosted Flakes, none of those products are healthy foods…..they could be made fresh daily from locally sourced organic farms and they’d still be crap foods.
I have a feeling the can of beer I have most evenings is healthier than any of these
 
I was careful with my wording there and said that by “many” measures (not all), Americans are less healthy now than ever. Life expectancy is of course longer, no argument there. But obesity is up, anxiety and depression are up, and clearly there are direct linkages between these things and diet/exercise.

I agree with this sentence you typed: “The government can do its best to keep particularly unhealthy things out of our food - and already does a lot of that! - but you can't stop people from choosing cheaper, calorie-dense carbs over fresh fruit and vegetables and lean meats (which tend to be more expensive).” I would argue that I’m simply in favor of doing what you said is already happening in a lot of areas - the government doing its best to keep particularly unhealthy things out of our food. No more and no less. That doesn’t mean the onus still won’t be on individuals to make healthy choices, but the particularly bad stuff should be taken out of the ingredients altogether.
Anxiety is being diagnosed more accurately, and more commonly, but I don't know how much it is "up" vs. say, the 1930s and 40s and how much it is that the stigma has gone away. I'd also encourage you to look into how anxiety disrupts the digestive system, which in turn impacts our cognitive abilities.
 
Whole lot of rumors out there about Kash Patel for FBI director. Whoo boy.
Hey, would you look at that! So Republicans don’t *actually* hate DEI hiring practices, huh? Kash Patel has exactly zero managerial experience and zero law enforcement experience, so naturally he should be put in charge of leading the largest domestic law enforcement agency in the country!
 
Hey, would you look at that! So Republicans don’t *actually* hate DEI hiring practices, huh? Kash Patel has exactly zero managerial experience and zero law enforcement experience, so naturally he should be put in charge of leading the largest domestic law enforcement agency in the country!
Jurassic Park Ian Malcom GIF
 
Back
Top