Another step nearer tyranny

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
I'm saying that generally when the State tries to alter behaviour to the benefit of the population it fails.

---

They should do no harm, I get that point and it is a good one.

quote:

---

I thought I suggested that VAT on processed food would be more likely to tackle obesity than attempting to control marketing of processed food, if tackling obesity were the aim.

Paul

---

You did, but I am afraid I still don't know whether you think the state *should* tackle obesity or even if the state *should ever* tackle any social or health issues.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DLF:
To me this is the crux of this thread, not banning advertising but that the idea that you can legislate for the good of society.

---

Of course it's possible for legislation to benefit society, but this thread, and your earlier comments, were about banning advertising, which is not the same thing at all. I want to know why you want to ban advertising, when there's no evidence it'll make any difference to anything, and, in fact, when the proposal shows a misunderstanding of the causes of obesity.

-- Ian

quote:

---

Originally posted by sideshowbob:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DLF:
To me this is the crux of this thread, not banning advertising but that the idea that you can legislate for the good of society.

---

Of course it's possible for legislation to benefit society, but this thread, and your earlier comments, were about banning advertising, which is not the same thing at all. I want to know why you want to ban advertising, when there's no evidence it'll make any difference to anything, and, in fact, when the proposal shows a misunderstanding of the causes of obesity.

-- Ian

---

Laurie didn't object to banning advertising because it "failed to understand the causes of obesity" but because it was "A step nearer tyrany". Laurie doesn't believe in any state intervention but natural selction and market forces. Fair comment Laurie? My POV was market forces are manipulated by the multinationals (advertising) so it isn't unreasonable for the state to attempt to redress the balance by either counter advertising (education) or restriction. It may be misguided but I think you and Paul and I agree it isn't tyrany and that *if* it was a significant influencing factor in obesity you wouldn't object to an advertising ban. Fair comment guys?

The proposal is actually "to encourage advertisers of junk food not to target children".

I don't particularly care whether junk food gets advertised or not. But I strongly disapprove of the hypocrisy involved in controlling advertising without controlling the product.

And when a limit on free expression is pointless, purely to create the impression a politician is 'doing something' then it really stinks.

What do you think? Is a government that casually proposes to restrict rights without showing a clear benefit to society not tyrannical? The fox hunting ban is a better example because that is clearly tyrannical, its main supporters don't dispute this.

Paul

quote:

---

Laurie didn't object to banning advertising because it "failed to understand the causes of obesity" but because it was "A step nearer tyrany". Laurie doesn't believe in any state intervention but natural selction and market forces. Fair comment Laurie?

---

My general position is that folk should be provided with information, and then allowed to make their own decisions, based on this information and their own personal judgement

My complaint is that increasingly the state is aiming to "protect people from themselves".....I have no quibbles with the underlying motives, simply with the naivity of the mentality driving these issues, viz that the realization seemes to have escaped the "regulators" that for every person "protected", there is another that is "restricted"

Just look at any totalitarian regime...most are failures. The most salient features of these regimes are:

(1) top-down regulation; Almost every aspect of day to day life is prescribed by rules

(2) utter stagnation and ultimate failure as the excessive regulations stifle any innovation or risk taking

I believe in freedom....only through freedom can people innovate, take risks and make progress. Part of the price for this freedom is that there will be failures

A system that tries to prevent failures inevitable blocks freedom, and progress at the same time

If people are protected from the consequences of their own misjudgements then any incentive they might have for making more careful judgements in the future are removed.....aka market forces if you prefer to use this term

Laurie S

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone who can try and make a point here about 'laziness' is presumably the sort...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


let's be honest here, if you're overweight then you're either eating too much or not exercising enough. The rest of your post is just making excuses - just as I did when I went through my fat bastard stage, just as everyone who's overweight does. I'm just wayyyy too busy! Bollocks!
Why not ask yourself things like - can I get to work in a different way? (I started riding), can I walk to the shops rather than driving? can I walk up those stairs instead of getting in the lift? Doesn't really take much and it's usually just laziness that stops us.

John,

At 6" 1 1/2' and 11st. I probably don't need to make "excuses" and I'm probably not going through a "fat bastard stage". As I said in my original post, if people believe this stuff then their ears tend to be closed. The idea of obesity being down to eating too much or not exercising enough is frankly laughable, condescending and just downright ignorant of the reality.

The rest of my post was, frankly, a far more reasoned attempt at coherence than your analysis.

Mike

quote:

---

The idea of obesity being down to eating too much or not exercising enough is frankly laughable, condescending and just downright ignorant of the reality.

---

Can you find me someone who is obese on a balanced diet combined with reasonable exercise? What percentage of obesity falls into this bracket?

All of the fat people I know eat too much and don't take any exercise, but it's dangerous to generalise from personal experience.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:
... I believe in freedom....only through freedom can people innovate, take risks and make progress. Part of the price for this freedom is that there will be failures

A system that tries to prevent failures inevitable blocks freedom, and progress at the same time

If people are protected from the consequences of their own misjudgements then any incentive they might have for making more careful judgements in the future are removed.....aka market forces if you prefer to use this term

---

You could go further still, Laurie. Check this ...

"The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) has warned that children are thrill-seeking on building sites and railway lines because playgrounds have become so boring. RoSPA said councils are so scared of being sued they had eliminated all the risk - and with it the fun."

Moving back to the ban on advertising of 'junk food' ...

Aren't there very practical difficulties with such a ban, particularly (but not solely) with regard to the definition of 'junk food'? At least with the cigarette advertising ban it was quite clear which adverts were for cigarettes.

Steve M

"Aren't there very practical difficulties with such a ban, particularly (but not solely) with regard to the definition of 'junk food'? At least with the cigarette advertising ban it was quite clear which adverts were for cigarettes."

This is a good point: where do you go with this because fundamentally, anyone who indulges in an unbalanced diet will put their health at risk, whether they eat a diet of hamburgers or celery sticks!
What should be banned - hamburgers, chocolate, beer? Where does it all end?

I think the answer is education and culture. In the U.S.A there's a whole culture which has grown up with the fast food concept. In Italy, when McDonald's launched their restaurant chain there, they failed. Why? I don't really know why but suspect it's partly due to the integrity of the Italian food culture and education at home.
I see nothing wrong with fast food or junk food per se because eaten in moderation it shouldn't pose any threat to one's health. The problem is with restraint. I don't think an advertising ban will do anything to discourage the consumption of one particular foodstuff as long as culturally the "indulgers" see nothing wrong with partaking in an unbalanced diet.
Therefore, the answer in my opinion lies in education and home culture.
If it's not part of the curriculum and then reinforced at home, how are people going to avoid falling into bad habits?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:

quote:

---

The idea of obesity being down to eating too much or not exercising enough is frankly laughable, condescending and just downright ignorant of the reality.

---

Can you find me someone who is obese on a balanced diet combined with reasonable exercise? What percentage of obesity falls into this bracket?

All of the fat people I know eat too much and don't take any exercise, but it's dangerous to generalise from personal experience.

Paul

---

Do you really think that every overweight person is in that condition just because he or she is a big fat lazy bastard? Obviously most of these people eat more than they burn off but does it ever occur to you that the reasons may be a bit deeper in some cases? Few folk would say to somebody who is anorexic that they should just eat sensibly and get on with it but it seems to be quite acceptable to treat overweight people as though they're some sort of pariah. As far as I'm concerned somebody who eats a pile of pizza followed by a gallon of ice cream and peanuts isn't doing it because he or she is hungry. There is often a much more deep-seated reason for it and this is what needs to be addressed. Undiagnosed diabetes for example can cause ravenous hunger pangs and there's no point in telling somebody whose stomach feels constantly like it's turning inside out that he just needs to get a grip.

quote:

---

Few folk would say to somebody who is anorexic that they should just eat sensibly and get on with it but it seems to be quite acceptable to treat overweight people as though they're some sort of pariah.

---

Are you equating obesity with anorexia?

IME most obese people need to change their eating habits. How many have diabetes before they get obese?

It seems that you are searching for external reasons to be fat. I really don't think they are available for most fatties, and especially not for most parents of obese children.

Paul

People form attitudes based on incorrect expectancy (ie. how likely something is to occur) and/or value (ie. what the benefit of something is) judgements. If these judgements are unduly influenced by parties who are no concern with the outcomes that would result for the individual, should the state attempt to address this?

People make 'bad' decisions, ie. they form intentions that are not congruent with their own attitudes. If the reasons that these bad decisions are made is because of 'faulty' cognitions, social inequalities, or undue external influence, should the state attempt to address this?

People fail to implement their intentions all the time. If the reasons that people fail to act on their intentions include poor self-regulatory strategies, social inequalities, or barriers places their by external forces, should the state attempt to address this?.

Laurie, in the words of Master Chief, "what you are proposing isn't very good science'. Knowledge-based interventions are only moderately succesful at changing intentions (through attitudes), and attitude change becomes less important when the behaviour is not under complete volitional control; how many important health behaviours really are under full volitional control? Moreover, behaviour change is a far more complex process; meta-analyses have found that small to moderate relationship exists between intention and behaviour.

I ought to get back to helping the state secretly make you do things you don't yet want to do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:
My general position is that folk should be provided with information, and then allowed to make their own decisions, based on this information and their own personal judgement

---

I agree the individual has to take responsibility for their own lives. I do think markets need regulating to allow a 'fair' choice. For example we wouldn't know about the sugar and salt added to baked beans if the food industry hadn't been forced to by regulation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomK:
Do you really think that every overweight person is in that condition just because he or she is a big fat lazy bastard? Obviously most of these people eat more than they burn off but does it ever occur to you that the reasons may be a bit deeper in some cases? ...

---

This issue has been brought to its current prominence because there has been a significant increase in obesity over the last few years. This increase has been attributed to changes in eating habits and a lack of exercise.

There are certainly emotional, diabetic and genetic contributions to obesity. It is unlikely that these can explain the recent increase.

Steve M

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:

IME most obese people need to change their eating habits. How many have diabetes before they get obese?

It seems that you are searching for external reasons to be fat. I really don't think they are available for most fatties, and especially not for most parents of obese children.

Paul

---

When you get down to it junk food is cheap, tastes good and is easily available but to satify your hunger you end up consuming thousands more calories than your body needs. I supect we haven't altered our eating habits over the last hundred thousand years but the nature of food has changed drastically over the last fifty. We get fat.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DLF:
I agree the individual has to take responsibility for their own lives. I do think markets need regulating to allow a 'fair' choice. For example we wouldn't know about the sugar and salt added to baked beans if the food industry hadn't been forced to by regulation.

---

It does seem sensible to regulate for more informative and easy to understand packaging.

However, this shouldn't go to the ridiculous extreme of the current labelling on cigarette packets which, in my view, has little or no impact on the amount that smokers smoke or the uptake of smoking by the young but can have negative effects in its own right.

Steve M

Feeeed Deeeeer Weeeeeeeelllllld" innit:

I accept that Steve but to say that all overweight people are that way simply because they're all fat lazy bastards is utter nonsense. Somebody who eats 12 pizzas in a day (and I've seen reference to this sort of thing) is not doing it because he's hungry. There's something underneath driving it.

And yes I'd say that extreme obesity could be compared to anorexia in that it's caused by an eating disorder. There's absolutely no doubt about it in my minid. Nobody in their right mind is going to eat that amount of food. There must be some sort of psychological disorder behind it.

Without being cynical or sarcastic (honest), and I'm going through myself a fattish soamsie two-weekie stage at present, in my experience the real clincher to cut out smokin, tokin, scoffin, boozin, and couch potatoin is poverty. It worked for me, chnges yer outlook (if yer let it) and gives yer freedom, innit.

Greed the World is summfink else.


ENGLAND 1 ESPANIA 3
(BECK#S Got CONFUSED INNIT)

quote:

---

People form attitudes based on incorrect expectancy (ie. how likely something is to occur) and/or value (ie. what the benefit of something is) judgements. If these judgements are unduly influenced by parties who are no concern with the outcomes that would result for the individual, should the state attempt to address this?

---

In a short word yes..by providing correct information.......not by banning advertising

The problem I see is that a case can always be made for more intrusive government on the basis that it brings more people under its protective umbrella.

My main gripe is that these well meaning folk have a distinct blind spot when it comes to the negative effects of the regulations introduced

A classic case is the child-proof caps on bottles containing potentially hazardous contents (eg tablet bottles)

Well intentioned, and generally effective. I wonder how many heart-disease sufferers have died as a result of having insufficient strength, at the critical time, to open a jar containing life-saving heart tablets?

I am not questioning the motives....just the rather crass naivity of the perpetrators of some of the more lunatic ideas to emerge from Whitehall, especially those bearing the signature of the Deputy Prime Minister...heaven protect us....

Laurie S

Laurie, How can you possibly say that? 2 Jags recently came third in the New York Marathon, granted his Chauffer did the actual runnin, but he got the credit so come on, be fair !


Fritz Von Credit where PFI's are Due

quote:

---

I accept that Steve but to say that all overweight people are that way simply because they're all fat lazy bastards is utter nonsense. Somebody who eats 12 pizzas in a day (and I've seen reference to this sort of thing) is not doing it because he's hungry. There's something underneath driving it.

---

You don't need to weight 400kg to be overweight and for some reason you keep bringing up these extreme exceptions. The vast majority of the overweight population is overweight because they're eating (or drinking) too much and not exercising enough. If this weren't true there wouldn't be a diet industry.

quote:

---

You don't need to weight 400kg to be overweight and for some reason you keep bringing up these extreme exceptions. The vast majority of the overweight population is overweight because they're eating (or drinking) too much and not exercising enough. If this weren't true there wouldn't be a diet industry.

---

I agree

Pehaps the government ought to impose a ban on advertising cars, as using them is likely to lead to obesity, due to reduced exercise that usually accompanies car ownership?

Laurie S

quote:

---

That might do us some good. Apparently 10% of the price of a car goes on advertising. We might be able to by a new car for considerably less.

---

On second thoughts......this would tend to INCREASE the number of cars sold, and make the problem even worse?

Laurie S

I think some of you are being very naive about the power of advertising.

http://www.commercialexploitation.com/events/SusanLinn1.htm

A snippet expanding on something mentioned in the above article.

"Cheryl Idell knows a lot about nagging.

She has written reports for major corporations with such titles as the "Nag Factor" and "The Art of Fine Whining." She tells her clients that nagging spurs about a third of a family’s trips to a fast-food restaurant, to buy children’s clothing or a video.

Idell, who is chief strategic officer for Western Initiative Media Worldwide, a major market research firm, speaks with the cold precision of a physicist. "Nagging falls into two categories," she explains. "There is persistent nagging, the fall-on-the-floor kind, and there is importance nagging, where a kid can talk about it."

Either is a good first step. But alone they are not enough. Idell advises Chuck E. Cheese and numerous other corporations, that getting kids to whine is even better. Better yet is to give them "a specific reason to ask for the product." In other words, Idell’s job is to make your life miserable. She even rates brands according to their "nag factor"–that is, their capacity to make your children badger you–and companies toil mightily to rate high on her list. Some of the most successful are McDonald’s, Levi’s, Discovery Zone, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Disney, and OshKosh."