Forums → WEPR → The Perfect President
| 56 | 32198 |
If the US elected the perfect president, what would they do? Would they lower taxes? Increase defense spending? Talk about what you would see in a perfect president here. No trolling or flaming.
- 56 Replies
Sounds to me that what Heisonnberg is proposing is that we put a tax on all foods considered unhealthy, so he can punish everyone who scrapes money together to buy their kids a treat, or buy themselves a treat. Because of the so called obesity epidemic which is based on a flawed system (BMI), says that all those who live in America are fat, no matter what their genetics or mind previously determined.It sounds like that because you haven't been paying close enough attention to what I said. I propose to implement this new tax to (if you so badly want to phrase it this way) "unish" the obese people and help this (as you put it) "epidemic" be rectified.
You make it sound as though a vast majority of Americans aren't overweight and everyone is at the right wieght and that obesity is non-issue in America. Is this what you truly think?
Why would you say Catholic nation, don't you know your history, and how most areas were fiercely protestant and against the Catholic Church SourceNot knowing the history of every state (like Maryland) doesn't really bother me all that much. If I asked you the history of a random province like Nova Scotia about something totally random would you know it without using google?
I say Catholic because there are simply a lot of Catholics in England and the English settled America, so it stands to reason that America was raised with English ideologies and religious standings. That was my logic anyways.
Catholics In England
I'll get to the rest of what you said late, getting tired.
You make it sound as though a vast majority of Americans aren't overweight and everyone is at the right wieght and that obesity is non-issue in America. Is this what you truly think?
You make it sound as if America is the only country with such an issue. Any modern and industrialized modern nation has such problems. Why? Because of the work that most of its citizens perform. Work that entails driving there, sitting there for eight or more hours, driving back and sleeping for at least hour more hours. Just to repeat that at least five days a week.
Obesity rates in modern industrialized nations
The article may be a couple years old, yet I still hold it as largely relevant. According to the graphs, the obesity rate in Mexico is large than that in the states. Granted the US comes second. Yet further review of the data shows that all of the top five are separated by a mere few percentage points.
That is not even mentioning how all of the nations shown have a fairly decent percentage of citizens considered 'overweight.' Japan, at the low end of the scale, has roughly twenty-five percent of it's citizens labeled as overweight. Meaning that at least one out of every four people one would see in Japan is overweight. Which for the lowest end of the scale is still outrageous.
1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
That's taxation right there! YOU WILL LITERALLY BE FINED AND POSSIBLY GO TO PRISON IF YOU DO NOT PAY TAXES.
Taxation is COERCION. That's a FACT. Taxes are NOT optional.
*facepalm
I'm sure that victims of armed robbery would disagree that a sin tax is even remotely similar to a hostage situation. I'm also sure they would be offended that you would have the audacity to suggest that. Buying poopy foods for a few extra nickles or dimes isn't quite the same as forced compliance with a gun. Paying taxes for foods that deteriorate your insides is optional, and scarcely is forcing or taking away ones freedoms to choose to scoff food.
I'm offended that you want to FORCE (TO MAKE PEOPLE SPEND MORE MONEY) because they want to do something YOU don't agree with, even though it has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.
Taxation is force. To say it isn't a form of coercion is FACTUALLY WRONG.
Taxation is to communication as armed robbery is to negotiation. What does this mean, because obviously you are intentionally missing the point so you can misconstrue my point.
When someone holds a gun to another person's face and demands money, that's a form of FORCE. That's a form of COERCION. When someone says, "you must pay us taxes or we'll arrest you and throw you in a cage", THAT'S ALSO a form of coercion.
Indeed I am, and taxation should certainly be used to persuade people not to destroy their bodies and themselves.
Why is it WRONG for regular citizens to force other people to make certain decisions, yet it's magically acceptable when it's the government? Why is it wrong to forcefully take money as a human being, yet it's okay when the government does it?
Again, other people's health isn't of YOUR concern, it isn't of the government's concern. If you want to make them stop, then it must be CONSENSUAL.
There most certainly is a proper way to live. I don't mean this to be patronizing or make it seem as though that I think I'm superior to everyone else, but the Criminal Code of Canada (or America) and The Highway Traffic Act testifies to this. By making all the acts in both of these entities (I do consider a Traffic and Criminal code an entity) illegal and telling us what to do implies and tells us there is a proper way to live and an improper way that'll get us locked away.
There are rules when it comes to driving so people can remain safe from harming EACH OTHER.
It doesn't only suggest it, it tells people that. When I say that I mean that healthier lives do deserve to be rewarded by spending less money, whereas self-destructive ones get the exact opposite.
That's sickening! Again, why are you so obsessed with telling other people what to do with THEIR OWN BODIES? You aren't my master.
As a resident of my country determining what I want done to my country, this is exactly for me to decide, but most importantly it is up to our government appointed officials to decide.
You want other people to live a certain way because you're a resident? You're lucky I'm a moderator and I have a certain image to keep.
1. It is not coercion in the typical sense, instead it is coercion in a sense that the word was twisted and redefined to mean what you want it to mean.
2. I prefer people not to pay for this junk, just altogether avoid it.
It's LITERALLY coercion through textbook definition! Holy Mother of God! It's IS coercion. You are LITERALLY forced to pay taxes. Taxation is not a suggestion, it is something you do to stay out of PRISON.
As for preferring people make healthier decisions, IT'S NONE YOUR BUSINESS WHAT PEOPLE DO TO THEIR OWN BODIES.
I'm not forcing anyone to buy these foods/beverages, but I suppose if you want to be so obtuse about this I guess I am forcing people to pay a bit more money for particular goods, if they so desperately want them, I do this to simply help them and create a better country and a better future generation. Not because I look down on their actions.
I'm glad you're so concerned, but again, people should be FREE to make their OWN ****ING DECISIONS. It's this idea that we must control actions for the benefit of society that's infuriating, because people should not be forced to live according to your own personal agenda. We need to protect people from coercion. We need to keep people safe from OTHERS, like you. We need to let people live how they see fit.
Sometimes, we do need to make rules. But when we make rules, we do so because other people are being harmed. It should never be, because someone is harming themselves.
For aforementioned reasons it isn't literally coercion, instead it is a mutated form of coercion.
I've made my argument, so here's this.
Perhaps I'm not their parents, but have you ever heard of the Good Samaritan Law?
I consider this a good example of The Good Samaritan Law. By introducing a sin tax you're successfully obligating your duty as a good Samaritan and saving people from peril (in this case body deterioration).
Good Samaritan Laws are in place so that people can help others when there is no time to talk to things out. When someone is about to get hit by a train, you can tackle them out of the way. But when someone is smoking, and you tell them it's bad for them and they still refuse to stop, then they have rejected your help.
I thought about this earlier, actually. I had a feeling you would make such an argument. However, forcing people to pay a fine (or to pay extra taxes - same concept) when they buy certain goods, the alternative to which is imprisonment, is NEVER acceptable and would NEVER be considered under Good Samaritan Law.
If you want to help people, and there's plenty of time to talk to them about whatever dangers are ahead, then you can't forcefully help them.
Yes it's your body, your choice to harm it, but it is also my legal obligation to attempt to stop you from doing so.
If you were to say such a thing while holding the authority to create such a law, it wouldn't be out of lines for me to tell you to piss off. It isn't your legal obligation any more than it's my legal obligation to limit the amount of time you're on the internet.
Actually it does... The above law may not actually say "stop people from committing sloth", but as a responsible and good citizen, I shall attempt it anyways (even if it is only via taxation).
If that's the case, then you don't need government to get involved. You can enforce these rules YOURSELF. Go for it! You believe it falls under Good Samaritan Law to help protect others from their own sloth, then go around and demand they stop buying unhealthy products. If they refuse, demand they pay more for said products and threaten to throw them in a prison cell if they disobey.
I'm glad you asked, the difference is: all of the above examples of "justification" you used for committing any act was illegal. Sin tax isn't illegal.
We're talking morality, not legality.
Another thing is that you aren't only letting the obese people suffer, you're allowing these obese adults to negatively influence their children to the point where it may kill or cause serious health problems for the kids.
Honestly, being a little over wieght isn't necisarily a problem, especially since a lot of people gain weight pretty **** easily due to their genes. It's not nearly as serious an issue as health nuts would have you believe.
This is wrong on sooooo many levels (the extra o's are for emphasis). Morally, fundamentally, for the good of the people, being a good citizen/person etc...
Not your body - not your business.
As you yourself said if other people are not consensual about smokers being around them then the said smokers should be stopped because the smoking is non-consensually causing others real harm.
This is the ONLY argument that makes any real sense. However, it is COMPLETELY inconsistent with sin tax. If smoking causes harm to others, then how does sin tax help the other people? Sure, it might reduce the number of smokers (in reality it doesn't, so we're pretending), but it still allows people to actually do so. If smoking around other people is an issue you would like to address, sin tax is NOT the proper solution.
Not quite... It's called democracy. I would ask if you've heard of it and know what it is (because you consider the above "mob rule" when it really isn't), but then I would seem rude, and now that would be a poor choice for me. Being rude to a mod
First of all, don't worry about me being a moderator.
Second, it is mob rule. Democracy is just a "sweet" and "gentle" term for it. Sometimes mob rule is okay. When you have something that isn't necisarily infringing on people's freedoms, mob rule is the best way to get things done.
The argument is not moot, you just think it is. I disagree, if the law and the constitution define this as legal and the public votes in a leader who would want this tax law passed, then it definitely does make it right.
The constitution exists to limit the powers of government. It doesn't state that everything the government does otherwise is "right".
What is right and what is legal are completely different.
Well I should've said Catholic nation, because Jewish people and and Jehovah Witnesses are Christians, but the great nation of Canada and America was not built off Jewish/Jehovah views I think.
And why ever not the Christian nation argument, I may not be Christian, but my great nation is. Seeing as how I'm patriotic I follow its laws and do my best to do what is best for the nation however Christian it is.
First Amendment.
The reason for the banning of gluttony and sloth wouldn't be one that is for or against a religious establishment, nor would its intent be to have anything to do with religion. Instead it has to do with the good of the country and it's residents.
You said the government was a Christian nation, and that gluttony is a sin. You used this to support sin tax. Sounds like what I said was perfectly relevant!
Anyway, to keep myself sane and the post wall somewhat shorter, I'm just going to stop here.
Now, I shouldn't jump into this yet I will. For two reason, really. One being that Nemo happens to share a lot of the same ideas as myself (but I tend to be the less easy going of the two of us) and the other being that I can not stand seeing people incessantly waggle their tongues whilst sophistry pours forth and dribbles down their chins.
Let me grab a canned, carbonated (as possibly alcoholic) beverage right after I smoke a bone.
Yes it's your body, your choice to harm it, but it is also my legal obligation to attempt to stop you from doing so.
No, not it is not. You have no legal jurisdiction nor obligation to tell me nor anyone else what to do and what not to do, even more so when put in terms of the current discussion. You speak of and use this law for your defense, yet you fail to grasp even the most baseline intention of said law.
It was put forth to make sure that no person (outside of some circumstances not relevant to the topic at hand) be required to give aid of any sort to a victim. Some jurisdictions require the a person at the scene of an emergency to give reasonable assistance to a person in need, ranging from calling the proper services/authorities and up (yet only if they are deemed to be necessary and cause no harm). In my state (NY), this law give immunity to the person who aids another in an emergency.
So you more or less just took the name of the law and added your own definition to it. I fail to see how that works in shape, way or form. And simply adding "I consider this..." does not change the fact that you are talking about a law which you obviously have no grasp of.
Actually it does... The above law may not actually say "stop people from committing sloth", but as a responsible and good citizen, I shall attempt it anyways (even if it is only via taxation).
Not only does it not say those actual words, it does not even imply anything close to that. I already touched on why your statements are mere suppositions whimsy.
Yet I would love to see you try, even more so since consent must be given for aid in accordance to the law you so gleefully pull to your aid. There would be no given consent nor implied consent in such a case. Tell you what, if you ever see me smoking a cigarette or enjoying a beverage, please try to tell me to stop. Because then I'd have to use your own bizarro world Good Samaritan law on you and warn you, as a good citizen, that continuing to do so is putting your well being and life at risk.
The argument is not moot, you just think it is. I disagree, if the law and the constitution define this as legal and the public votes in a leader who would want this tax law passed, then it definitely does make it right.
Everything the government decides for its citizens must be right, yeah? And it totally has to do with only what the voters want. Nothing to do with the lobbyist groups that throw insane amounts of money towards whichever laws further their cause (which is typically the fattening of their wallets.)
Well I should've said Catholic nation, because Jewish people and and Jehovah Witnesses are Christians, but the great nation of Canada and America was not built off Jewish/Jehovah views I think.
And why ever not the Christian nation argument, I may not be Christian, but my great nation is. Seeing as how I'm patriotic I follow its laws and do my best to do what is best for the nation however Christian it is.
Baa a bit louder, little sheep. Brandish your ill-conceived notion of patriotism as a shield, and your best intentions as a weapon. Use the assumed all-encompassing umbrella of religion for an entire country for what you see fit. Whatever ignorant and ill-believed hogwash makes you feel better at night when you lay down to rest.
Oh? Over one hundred million Americans being obese is now a few people? I think you should inform the dictionary guys to change the definition of "a few".
The ways of defining someone as obese or overweight are draconian and insane at best. They base it off of the BMI scale. It simply just takes the height of weight of a person and spits out a number. 30 is considered obese, with the other categories falling under that. The glaring problem with such a system is that it does not take into consideration the build of the person. When it comes to categorizing someone in such terms, this just does not work, seeing as the build of each person is different.
Example:
I'm 6' and roughly 195 pounds. Punch in the numbers, let it calculate and it tells me that my BMI is 26.4. Overweight. Even if I lost ten pounds of pure fat, I'd still be labeled as overweight. In order to be labeled as 'normal', I'd had to lose a whopping fifteen pounds of fat. If someone was to shave fifteen pounds of anything off of my frame, I'd look sickly and malnourished.
They would have to go on a person to person basis to determine a true number of 'obese' citizens. Which would take far too much work. So they just gather numbers, crunch them, look at the bollocks results and label the results as srs bizness.
I'm not American, so I don't hold nearly as strong views on this topic as either of the moderators before me. I'm also not going to write a two-thousand word post nor am I going to interrupt the current exchange, so much as provide a summation of the salient points:
Taxation is a form of coercion insofar as your liberties will be restricted if you fail to comply. I'm not sure how relevant this line of argumentation is to the broader point of contention, however, which seems to focus on whether it is right or not to consider whether or not a person is entitled to act in ways other than their best interests, and what limitations to impose upon them. It's important to consider the relationship and distinction from laws preventing people from behaviours that restrict or infringe other peoples' freedoms. In short, is all coercion necessarily bad, and if not, what kinds are acceptable, and how can one then reach a consensus on restriction of self-liberties?
But is that REALLY the best question to ask anyway? Let's put it this way. I don't currently trust people to act in their own best interests nor would I necessarily expect them to. Besides, "in one's best interests" is nebulous and difficult to define, and what I consider in my best interests may not be what law defines as in my best interests, despite the fact that I consider myself more educated than those who would decide how I should behave if I were behaving in my best interests, and frankly that doesn't make sense. Restrictive laws may dictate but they also engender resistive culture, and that's what really needs addressing: education, dissemination, proliferation and assimilation are the steps needed to adopt lasting change. Not some law that unreasonable people will ignore and reasonable people think they're being unfairly targeted because of alleged unreasonable people.
As a side note:
The ways of defining someone as obese or overweight are draconian and insane at best. They base it off of the BMI scale
I'm not sure if all data is solely based off the BMI scale any more, or a combination of BMI and waist circumference, which has much improved sensitivity over BMI alone for the reason 'voidy points out. There's also been attempts to adopt BMI tailored to race, but that scale would make me overweight (with my sub 10% adiposity) so I know just how useful that's going to be :P
And why ever not the Christian nation argument, I may not be Christian, but my great nation is. Seeing as how I'm patriotic I follow its laws and do my best to do what is best for the nation however Christian it is.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -First Amendment
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." -Thomas Jefferson
"That Amendment [First Amendment] requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and nonbelievers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them." -Justice Hugo Black (Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing)
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." -Article11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, submitted by John Adams
haha three or four mods + Mage and that other guy against von who has 100 posts to his credit, the rest of y'all have thousands
dats right mods, show him that he cant have an opinion contrary to the popular belief without it being attempted to be utterly proven as incorrect.
Anyways I do agree with heisenbourg, there are to many fat people around town, it's saddening.
Anyways I do agree with heisenbourg, there are to many fat people around town, it's saddening.
The way to fight this issue is by raising people out of poverty. This is because it's usually the poor who often eat the cheap low nutrition, high fat foods. Since the food that often eat is low in nutrition they will also eat more of it to compensate. Taking more money from the poor (who would be the ones most likely to foot the bill on a "sin" tax for unhealthy food) is simply not the answer.
The quality and monetary value of diets consumed by adults in the United States
You want other people to live a certain way because you're a resident? You're lucky I'm a moderator and I have a certain image to keep.
It's LITERALLY coercion through textbook definition! Holy Mother of God! It's IS coercion. You are LITERALLY forced to pay taxes. Taxation is not a suggestion, it is something you do to stay out of PRISON.
As for preferring people make healthier decisions, IT'S NONE YOUR BUSINESS WHAT PEOPLE DO TO THEIR OWN BODIES.
I'm glad you're so concerned, but again, people should be FREE to make their OWN ****ING DECISIONS.
You need to take it down a notch there, Mr. moderator. As the community home page says, "keep the debates friendly and clean!". You are doing neither and not only do you look unprofessional, but you seem to be getting too easily worked up.
The least you can do is respect our opinion, just as we're respecting yours. The condescending responses and analogies are offensive.
As for Von's argument, it's simply an evasive idea that can't do much harm. Yes, I get that no one can control what you can or cannot put into your body. The taxation of things such as cigarettes, cheap fast food, etc. is only for the greater good of people's health. That's the only goal here guys.
It's not like we'd collectively go around and shove vegetables down people's throats daily to ensure they get their daily nutrients. It's simply an attempt (possibly futile) to get people to eat healthier and hopefully help lower the amount of diagnosis of things such as cancer, diabetes, obesity, etc.
Granted, people who want things will pay the extra few bucks to get it (specifically cigarettes).. but that's not to say EVERYBODY would. It would give people more incentive to quit smoking. It would give people more incentive to go the cheap route in activities such as grocery shopping and stay away from the (now higher taxed) junk food and buy the cheaper, healthier foods.
Again, WE GET IT that we can't control what people put into their body. That much is clear. That no longer needs to be repeated. But an attempt at such a thing surely can't be as bad of an idea as NoName makes it seem.
Ooops, let's try that again...
I've made my argument, so here's this.I agree now after rereading The Good Samaritan Laws that I misconstrued what the law really was all about. The way I perceived it was that The Good Samaritan law required that people try to aid others when they see someone in peril or harm (even if self-inflicted) even if it is just via taxes. I suppose it doesn't really say that after rereading it though.
This link can apply to you as well, especially since I explained your misconception about this tax law.
Good Samaritan Laws are in place so that people can help others when there is no time to talk to things out. When someone is about to get hit by a train, you can tackle them out of the way. But when someone is smoking, and you tell them it's bad for them and they still refuse to stop, then they have rejected your help.
I thought about this earlier, actually. I had a feeling you would make such an argument. However, forcing people to pay a fine (or to pay extra taxes - same concept) when they buy certain goods, the alternative to which is imprisonment, is NEVER acceptable and would NEVER be considered under Good Samaritan Law.
If you want to help people, and there's plenty of time to talk to them about whatever dangers are ahead, then you can't forcefully help them
No, not it is not. You have no legal jurisdiction nor obligation to tell me nor anyone else what to do and what not to do, even more so when put in terms of the current discussion. You speak of and use this law for your defense, yet you fail to grasp even the most baseline intention of said law.
It was put forth to make sure that no person (outside of some circumstances not relevant to the topic at hand) be required to give aid of any sort to a victim. Some jurisdictions require the a person at the scene of an emergency to give reasonable assistance to a person in need, ranging from calling the proper services/authorities and up (yet only if they are deemed to be necessary and cause no harm). In my state (NY), this law give immunity to the person who aids another in an emergency.
So you more or less just took the name of the law and added your own definition to it. I fail to see how that works in shape, way or form. And simply adding "I consider this..." does not change the fact that you are talking about a law which you obviously have no grasp of.
Not only does it not say those actual words, it does not even imply anything close to that. I already touched on why your statements are mere suppositions whimsy.
Yet I would love to see you try, even more so since consent must be given for aid in accordance to the law you so gleefully pull to your aid. There would be no given consent nor implied consent in such a case. Tell you what, if you ever see me smoking a cigarette or enjoying a beverage, please try to tell me to stop. Because then I'd have to use your own bizarro world Good Samaritan law on you and warn you, as a good citizen, that continuing to do so is putting your well being and life at risk.
Regardless as to the fact that I misconstrued this law, the over all proposal of this sin tax is just. The means are just and the ends are good. Whether or not a criminal law requires us to aid these people I shall still attempt to.
If you were to say such a thing while holding the authority to create such a law, it wouldn't be out of lines for me to tell you to piss off. It isn't your legal obligation any more than it's my legal obligation to limit the amount of time you're on the internet.I suppose it really isn't my legal obligation to, regardless it is still my moral obligation to do this and my obligation as a citizen to do this. Oh and it would certainly be out of line to tell me to piss off if I told you that. When people try to help others telling them to piss off is wrong and out of line.
We're talking morality, not legality.No we're talking about both.
Honestly, being a little over wieght isn't necisarily a problem, especially since a lot of people gain weight pretty **** easily due to their genes. It's not nearly as serious an issue as health nuts would have you believe.I would tend to agree that being a little over weight isn't a problem, except most people aren't just a little overweight.
By the way here is the difference between obese and overweight, I don't think you understand it.
Difference
If there were only a few people overweight and even fewer obese I wouldn't propose this law, but that isn't the case. 1/3 of the American population is obese/overweight. This is a pretty serious issue.
While the health nuts may or may not make it seem like a bigger issue than it is, you and a few others in this thread make it seem less significant than it is.
This is the ONLY argument that makes any real sense. However, it is COMPLETELY inconsistent with sin tax. If smoking causes harm to others, then how does sin tax help the other people? Sure, it might reduce the number of smokers (in reality it doesn't, so we're pretending), but it still allows people to actually do so. If smoking around other people is an issue you would like to address, sin tax is NOT the proper solution.I'll confess to something else. I was wrong to put smoking in with this sin tax discussion, because my perfect leader would criminalize smoking. As you said and I agree a sin tax is not the proper solution to smoking, I think only criminalizing smoking is a practical solution.
The reason I would like to criminalize smoking is pretty much sense and what you would expect, however if you would like to discuss this too I would be willing to.
Second, it is mob rule. Democracy is just a "sweet" and "gentle" term for it. Sometimes mob rule is okay. When you have something that isn't necisarily infringing on people's freedoms, mob rule is the best way to get things done.Infringing on people's freedoms is the unlawful and unconstitutional encroachment on people's freedom. Taxation does not fall under this category if the phases it is done in, is correct.
The definition of mob rule is: Control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation."
A Democratic Republic is not that, nor is voting people into office or passing tax laws. So you're wrong by saying it is a mob rule and wrong by saying that it is infringing on people's rights.
The constitution exists to limit the powers of government. It doesn't state that everything the government does otherwise is "right".No it doesn't state it, but it implies it. It is implied that the constitution is right and just. Therefore a government operating within its realms is right and just.
What is right and what is legal are completely different.
Most of the time legal is right and by the way these two words are definitely not completely different.
You said the government was a Christian nation, and that gluttony is a sin. You used this to support sin tax. Sounds like what I said was perfectly relevant!Let me rephrase this in a way you may understand again: the government was built on a Christian ideology, and most people in Canada and America are Christians according to recent demographics, therefore I was stating a reason for Christian citizens to back this sin tax. However the over all reason of this sin tax is not a religious one at all.
Anyway, to keep myself sane and the post wall somewhat shorter, I'm just going to stop here.
By the way, when arguing with me about why not to use Christianity as a reason to pass this law you said "First Amendment." That is seriously flawed because;
a) This is an American "Amendment" and I'm a Canadian.
b) I was speaking about Canada at the time, not America.
c) I'm pretty sure (not 100% though) that neither the Canadian Charter of Rights nor constitution separates state from religion.
More to come.
the other being that I can not stand seeing people incessantly waggle their tongues whilst sophistry pours forth and dribbles down their chins.This is a highly subjective and very rude thing to say. The poster of this sentence can use it against just about any argument ever made. It doesn't make saying this right though.
I've conceded to things within the scope of an argument, no need to be so rude if most of what someone says (in this case me) is logical (I think so anyways) and only a few parts of their arguments are flawed (ie. when I was talking about The Good Samaritan Law).
Everything the government decides for its citizens must be right, yeah? And it totally has to do with only what the voters want. Nothing to do with the lobbyist groups that throw insane amounts of money towards whichever laws further their cause (which is typically the fattening of their wallets.)Let me rewrite this for you: Everything the government decides for its citizens should be right. The governments decisions should certainly have only to do with what the voters desire.
No amount of cash the lobbyist groups' throw towards government officials (or towards laws) should determine which laws are passed. There are only a few cases in which the opposite of this has happened and the government officials were very corrupt.
Baa a bit louder, little sheep.Well I'm just going to ignore this condescending comment from a moderator that is meant only to be rude and patronizing and does not at all progress the current discussion.
Brandish your ill-conceived notion of patriotism as a shield, and your best intentions as a weapon. Use the assumed all-encompassing umbrella of religion for an entire country for what you see fit. Whatever ignorant and ill-believed hogwash makes you feel better at night when you lay down to rest.Did you become a mod by insulting people and saying silly little comments like "Whatever ignorant and ill-believed hogwash makes you feel better at night when you lay down to rest", or did you just descend into sarcasm and condescension when you became a mod?
If any player says comments such as yours that would earn them a three day ban would it not?
I'll rephrase what I meant for you like I did for NoName: seeing as how Canada and America was built on Christianity, the fact that gluttony is one of the seven sins makes it a good reason for Christians to back up this tax law. However the reason behind the law is not a derived from religion.
The ways of defining someone as obese or overweight are draconian and insane at best. They base it off of the BMI scale. It simply just takes the height of weight of a person and spits out a number. 30 is considered obese, with the other categories falling under that. The glaring problem with such a system is that it does not take into consideration the build of the person. When it comes to categorizing someone in such terms, this just does not work, seeing as the build of each person is different.I completely disagree with this. My brother is 6 ft tall and weighs 155 pounds (21 on the BMI calc) and he is the most fit and athletic guy I know. He is almost literally built on muscles. He can bench press above 100 pounds and he is certainly not malnourished, nor does he look it.
Example:
I'm 6' and roughly 195 pounds. Punch in the numbers, let it calculate and it tells me that my BMI is 26.4. Overweight. Even if I lost ten pounds of pure fat, I'd still be labeled as overweight. In order to be labeled as 'normal', I'd had to lose a whopping fifteen pounds of fat. If someone was to shave fifteen pounds of anything off of my frame, I'd look sickly and malnourished.
They would have to go on a person to person basis to determine a true number of 'obese' citizens. Which would take far too much work. So they just gather numbers, crunch them, look at the bollocks results and label the results as srs bizness.
If the BMI calc shows you as overweight and obese, then I think you likely are. I'm like that, I trust what is commonly used by most people to determine who is and isn't overweight. I don't say this to be mean or rude at all. I'm just saying I trust it as being relatively correct in most cases.
Whatever reasons there are behind any type of obesity I think this tax law would help rectify the problem overall.
This made me laugh. You have the audacity to call me out on this analogy, but none of the absurd "analogies" NoName said? For example: "Sin Taxes are exactly like hostage situations."
You need to learn a few things about analogies.
1.You accuse me of making redicilous analogies, because the way taxation works is very different from armed robbery. This is expected with analogies - there is no such thing as a perfect analogy. There will always be differences between the two things being compared. The only way you can have a perfect analogy is if you compare the same thing with itself - but, then you no longer have an analogy.
2. You have strong analogies and weak analogies. You're essentially accusing my analogy of being weak - you believe the two situations I compare are too vastly different. However, I wasn't comparing the situations as a whole - thus why I said A is as to B as C is as to D. The reason your school has you answer those "A is as to B" questions is because you're supposed to learn how to isolate and compare similarities between two different situations or objects.
So how is taxation like armed robbery? You explained that taxation is a form of communication and persuasion, but not a form of coercion.
When you point a gun at someone's head and you demand them to pay you money for buying sugary drinks or cigarettes, then you're using coercion to communicate a message to said person and to persuade them to either pay the extra costs, be shot, or to avoid buying things that make you take money from them.
When you apply a tax, the tax MUST be applied to an object. A person MUST pay that tax or they will be fined or arrested (and if the fine isn't payed, arrested). The government is using this coercive thread as a way to communicate a message to the buyer that they shouldn't buy a product, and the government is persuading them with threats of arrest to either not buy a product, or to pay more for it.
You then explain that taxation is NOT coercion because you have a choice not to buy the good. You're using coercion to force people not to buy a product. Of course, there is one difference, the person CAN buy the product if they want, but they would then be forced to pay more money for said product - but your logic assumes that because they made a choice to buy said product, they weren't forced to do anything. WRONG. Those people were FORCED to pay taxes on said product.
You can argue that some means of coercion are acceptable, but you can't argue that taxation isn't a form of coercion. It is.
Let's say you want to cross a bridge, but bandits have it locked down. They won't let anyone pass unless they pay $200. Even though you do have the option of not crossing the bridge, their actions ARE STILL coercive.
To clarify, I never said taxation was exactly like a hostage situation. I claimed that there is a strong resemblance with taxation and armed robbery when you look at the basic principle of the two and you determine why they're both coercive actions.
By the way the basic principle between car insurance and sin taxes are the same. You save money for behaving and lose money for misbehaving. The basic principle is the exact same.
This is an example of a weak analogy, because the reason you gave is too vague.
Yes, both systems are similar in that one regard, but one doesn't justify the other because there are other VERY important factors between the two you failed to address (and these factors are important because they serve as the core of this debate).
Insurance is required because it protects people and their property from each other. If one person crashes into another, his insurance will cover the person he ran into. In fact, you don't need to cover yourself when you drive, only other people.
Sin tax is put in place to protect people from themselves. Completely different.
Oh and one more thing: car insurance is meant to be a reward for not being dangerous and harming people on the road.
That's right.
When you are being unhealthy and being gluttonous the negative influence on those around you does harm them, this is especially true with the children of these adults. The analogy is certainly not hogwash.
Although there is such thing as bad parenting, you have to let parents do their thing and intervene only when ABSOLUTELY necessarily. And stop saying glutton - gluttony is how much you eat, not what you eat. I just gluttoned the **** out on 3 healthy sandwiches.
Not only that, but you have to determine what is and is not "bad" influence. Eating fast food isn't necisarily a bad influence.
No one is forcing you to go to stores and buy food items at these prices. You do not have to pay the taxes, no one will drag you away and possibly bring you to federal prison for not abusing your body.
Giving someone a choice doesn't negate the existence of coercion. Sure, people aren't being forced to pay the sin tax in general (no coercion there), but you ARE forcing people who do buy the product to pay the tax (coercion).
If I can't buy a product UNLESS I give into your demands, then it's coercion, regardless of my other choices.
I should've said that in my original post, for not doing so I apologize, I can see how you misconstrued what I said and how you could think it is coercion when it isn't. Now knowing what you know, would you agree that it isn't coercion?
Wrong, you still don't understand that having another option doesn't negate the existence of coercion.
1. Other peoples lives and affairs do have to do with me because;
a) I want to do what is the best for everyone;
b) I care for other people, I do not like to see them so needlessly inflicting damage to themselves;
c) I'm a responsible citizen. Being a responsible citizen is stepping up in your community, staying up to date on politics and caring for your neighbours.
Essentially, other people's lives are your business because you want to make it your business. The problem is that merely wanting to do something doesn't (shouldn't) grant you the authority to magically intervene.
Westboro Baptist Church wants to help people by banning all gay activities and put an end to any religion that isn't their own. These people might actually want what's best for everyone. Why do we hate them? Because they're forcing their views on everyone else.
2. I'm offended that you would suggest that the best thing to do is leave everyone to their own devices. That is selfish, lazy, mean and self-indulgent.
I'm nobody's master. If I think someone is harming themselves, I can do my best to stop them - but I should not be allowed to use coercion. It is not selfish, for I recognize other people's right to make their own decision, even if I disagree with it. It is not lazy, for persuasion is the much more difficult rout than the use of force. It is not mean, I am merely respecting other people's rights to make their own decisions. It is not self-undulgent, because I am allowing others to do what i disagree with.
Though, the description fits you quite well.
"This doesn't have to do with me, so why bother getting into this affair, why bother helping other people if it isn't directly related to me?"
"What does it matter that people are killing themselves? It doesn't involve me."
"People are dying you say? Well haha fk them, it's their own fault. I ain't lifting a finger to help them. In fact I'll try my very best to dissuade you from helping others, this way because I have no inclination to help them you won't be able to either!"
"People don't know how to treat themselves and you expect me to help them treat themselves better? Haha that's rediculous, now get the hell out of here before I blast you away for trespassing as is my given right due to the right to bear arms!"
These are ALL strawmen and a false dichotomies.
In short, you can be against sin tax and still care enough for other people to try and help them. Not everyone who's against sin tax has the mentality that people should be left to kill themselves.
Taxation isn't to communication as armed robbery is to negotiation. Armed robbery is not negotiation, it's going into banks or homes or businesses with a weapon and stealing from people. Tax is not stealing. Going into someones home, stabbing them in the chest and then taking their money is not negotiation, neither is breaking into a bank and stealing cash. How in the world could you see mugging or armed robbery as negotiation and compare it to taxation?
I already clarified this earlier. The main difference between robbery and taxation is that you're allowed to not buy a certain good if you want to avoid sin tax, where there is no way to avoid being robbed. However, if you want to buy a product that contains a sin tax, you're forced to pay.
Calling taxation a form of communication can arguably send a message, but you're merely giving it titles. You're saying something can't be coercive if it's a form of communication, which just isn't the case.
1. It's right for the government to do that and not for you to is because you choose to live in a society and country where the powers we the people voluntarily gave the government allows them to do this. If you don't like the fact that this is how a Democratic Republic works (people voluntarily giving the elected officials power) then perhaps a different country would be best for you to live in.
No, I didn't agree to these laws. No, I do not give my consent merely by living in an area.
Being American or Canadian means accepting the governments decisions and choices since you elected the officials and gave them the power to make said laws and execute the laws properly. If you don't like the way America is, you could run for office you know and change things.
This would justify **** if it were legalized. In many parts of the middle east, it is acceptable to hit your wife and have sex with her whenever you want, it doesn't make it any more right.
3. Fortunately I'm not MAKING them stop, I'm using an incentive to try and get them to voluntarily stop.
You're not making them stop, you're making them pay more if they choose to buy something you don't agree with. Still coercion.
People should not be 100% free to make their own decisions (largely free to yes, but not 100%). As you already know some people are truly imbeciles, they need to be protected from themselves and people like you, who seek to allow people to kill themselves, and do not take any responsibility for helping others.
I do help others, but I do not own their bodies. I have friends who drink, and I disagree with their decision. I will talk to my friends and make sure they drink responsibly. I don't use force, I use verbal communication. I don't own their body.
You should respond to Strop's post, I'm most curious as to your response to him.
http://jerschneid.blogspot.com/2010/11/bmi-is-bull****-bmi-of-pro-athletes.html
example of how bmi is broken
Not knowing the history of every state (like Maryland) doesn't really bother me all that much. If I asked you the history of a random province like Nova Scotia about something totally random would you know it without using google?
I say Catholic because there are simply a lot of Catholics in England and the English settled America, so it stands to reason that America was raised with English ideologies and religious standings. That was my logic anyways.
Catholics In England
I'll get to the rest of what you said late, getting tired.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_England_and_Wales
if you read about the history of Catholicism in England, you will notice there were numerous persecutions, biggest account in England listed at the end of the Tudor section.
(I am going to let the mods handle this argument, but I will be posting small stuff)
~~~Darth Caedus
This argument is taking up almost all of the posts, preventing any other opinions regarding the original question. Is there any other place for you guys to debate this so we can go back to the original topic?
You must be logged in to post a reply!