[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by sek929 

1. F**k that, I should be able to buy a bag of smartfood at a 7/11 if I want.
2. People will source their junk food from elsewhere, forcing a store to sell certain foods won't work.
3. No argument with that, but try to get elected by the heartland with that as your platform.
4. Sugar is not the problem, people consuming far to much of it is. I drink soda and love Kit Kats, yet I'm still very healthy.
5. We can barely fund our schools the way they are, how about a tax rebate for students who bring their own lunch from home. Putting the emphasis on nutrition on the parents, where it should be in the first place.
6. Also stupid. I love a nice cold coke and I'm ideal weight, why should I be penalized?
7. Like the blood in a delicious steak? That shit gets my motor running.
8. Banning HFCS will not end America's obsession with sweets. Food loaded with other types of sugar is just as fattening.
9. Greatly disagree with this.
10. How about only overweight children get forced into this. I did this thing called playing with friends when I was young, kept me fit. Don't see how forcing everyone into a fitness regiment is very fair.

Agree with all of the above.

Here's a thought, however. How about not allowing people to use EBT benefits to buy cookies, candies, and other sweets? Restrict what food they can buy using gov't (our) cash. No sodas, either.


A nurse from my doctor's office called me last month to tell me that I'm at risk. I weighed 194lbs @5'11". Supposedly my BMI was high and she told me I was borderline obese, it took me 5 minutes to explain to her that I usually hover around 9-10% body fat and work out an hour each day, not counting bike riding and outdoor work.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

America lacks self-control, that's all

It because we started outsourcing responsibility over our lives to corporations and government watchdogs. We used to burn more calories while running around watchdogging ourselves.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Here's a thought, however. How about not allowing people to use EBT benefits to buy cookies, candies, and other sweets? Restrict what food they can buy using gov't (our) cash. No sodas, either.

Agree with this fully. Would be nice if that was coupled with subsidized healthy food or at least the EBT benefits would allow people to afford healthy food they wouldn't otherwise be able to pay for.

On the topic of my lust for soda. My favorite drink? Water. I only have soda usually with dinner, otherwise I drink water all day...besides my morning coffee. I have a soft spot for Apple Juice too, the 100% juice stuff though, I can't stand 'juice' that ends up with more sugar than a can of coke.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I weighed 194lbs @5'11". Supposedly my BMI was high and she told me I was borderline obese.

Unless you're fudging the numbers, that nurse is wacko. Going just by BMI, you'd have to get to 215lbs in order to cross the obese line for 5'11", and 194 would be in the lower half of "overweight."

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Agree with this fully. Would be nice if that was coupled with subsidized healthy food or at least the EBT benefits would allow people to afford healthy food they wouldn't otherwise be able to pay for.

On the topic of my lust for soda. My favorite drink? Water. I only have soda usually with dinner, otherwise I drink water all day...besides my morning coffee. I have a soft spot for Apple Juice too, the 100% juice stuff though, I can't stand 'juice' that ends up with more sugar than a can of coke.

As I recall the HFCS party line, natural fruit juice actually has just as much sugar as soda, but it comes with a load of fiber too which makes your body work for it (or dump it right back out?). Or something like that.

[besson3c]

I agree with Demonhood

[besson3c]

America lacks self control, but there is also a built in disadvantage here which is either a result or reflection of this.

There is a reason why soda is America's number one drink whereas tea is the number one drink elsewhere.

[euphras]

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

...

Right now, some of you are thinking: Yeah, right, if they're so poor, why aren't they super skinny from the lack of food? To which I answer: People still believe this? These people have enough money for food. They don't have enough money/knowledge/availability/time to get GOOD food. So they eat calorie-dense rubbish. They're looking at their needs and their obligations and making a hard choice (or a lazy one, depending on the person).

seconded (by heart, seriously),.

[Waragainstsleep]

Of course, if everyone in America started taking responsibility for themselves and their own actions, they'd have to stop suing each other all the time.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

What a load of rubbish, the UK and France have had free health services for years. Its only recently that they're catching up with the obesity rates of the US.

I should have added "in the US".

Different country, different dynamics.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

America lacks self control, but there is also a built in disadvantage here which is either a result or reflection of this.

There is a reason why soda is America's number one drink whereas tea is the number one drink elsewhere.

Still lack of self control. I love sodas just like everyone else, but I treat it as a treat, not a drink. I'll have a few sodas each month, just like I have an occasional ice cream.

However, the main issue of lack of self control is not the KINDS of food, but the AMOUNT. I lost 25 pounds just by eating less (5'8, down to 155 from 180). No exercise, no change in diet, no giving up anything permanently. Just freaking eating less.

ANYONE can do that, no matter what you eat.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Of course, if everyone in America started taking responsibility for themselves and their own actions, they'd have to stop suing each other all the time.

The truth. F$&cking litigious society. I hate that crap.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is a reason why soda is America's number one drink whereas tea is the number one drink elsewhere.

Cause it's fizzy?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I think you mean glucose. Fructose generally does not affect your metabolic control system.

No no, I mean fructose. Glucose every cell in the body can metabolize. Fructose is only metabolized in the liver and this metabolization in the liver results in a lot of nasty things for the body. The result of fructose consumption is insulin resistance, obesity, more LDL cholesterol, triglycerides and a acid left over in the blood that increases blood pressure. The obesity factor has more to do with causing over eating because it interferes with lipids which controls hunger.

100 years ago we had almost no Fructose in our diet. Natural sources of Fructose like Honey was guarded by bee's with stingers. Other sources like sugar cane was very hard. And the rest of the fructose we consumed was in fruits. Heavy use of fructose started in the early 1900's as it became easier with industrialization to make sucrose sugar. Fat was still the main source of taste and calories up until the 80's in most foods though. In the 80's America (and Canada) got hit with a double whammy that changed our food which is now being adopted all over the world. This is why the US leads the world in obesity and the rest of the world is now catching up. In the late 70's, I believe it was 78 the US imposed sugar taxes and quotas causing table sugar to be twice that of the rest of the world. Net result food produces turned to HFCS which was cheaper because it was locally produced by locally grown corn which was subsidized. So part one of this is cheaper sugar. Part two of this is a sugar with 5% more fructose which I will get back to again in a minute. Then in the 80's we had this fat free craze because of one study called Seven Countries Study by Ancel Keys. The problem is correlation does not equate to causation and his study was pretty poorly done. Because of his study though 30 years of food policy was put in place that resulted in people getting really fat. During the 80's fat was replaced in food which had 9 calories per gram with Sugar which had 4 calories per gram. But to compensate for differences in taste for every gram of fat removed they replaced it with 2-3 grams of sugar causing more calories in the food. Further more a calorie isn't a calorie and you can not match up the calories from fat, sugar and protein at face value because of how the body metabolises the different colorizes. You can't even compare one kind of sugar to another.

So starting in the 80's North America's food supply changed. Fat was removed from food and replaced with Sugar. Stuff was now labeled low fat. This increased sugar consumption. Additional to that with some foods and Soda because of government taxes and quota's the food industry switched to HFCS. Whats bad about this? 5% more fructose. While it does not seem a lot, if you look at the fact we eat 40lb a year in sugar, in sucrose which is 50% glucose and 50% fructose that works out to be 20 pounds each. In HFCS its 18 pounds of glucose and 22 pounds of fructose. 2 additional pounds of fructose in the diet just from the switch with out changing the amount of sugar consumed. That is why HFCS is bad. It just adds more fructose into the diet.

The rest of the world started catching up to the US with fat free diets and HFCS in the 2000's and this is why we are seeing people in Japan, China, Europe getting fatter. They are catching up to us. We have a 20 year head start on it.

North American culture has changed some what to a more busy life style, eating on the go, eating out less cooking. We are eating the same amount as before in a lot of cases but eating the wrong foods, foods that have higher contents of sugars which if we ate at home with home cooked meals we would not be eating.

Its not just a case of people being lazy and over eating. The food itself has changed a lot. Food got cheaper, we eat more, food changed so we get a lot more of the stuff we don't want and how we eat from the home to the quick and easy frozen food or eating out has changed. All this combined has created the expensive health care epidemic.

A side note Fructose causes the same damage to the liver as booze. You can see fatty livers and liver damage in a non drinker looking exactly the same as a heavy drinker from the damage caused by fructose.

A by product in the liver turning fructose into a usable energy for the boy is small cell LDL, this is the kind of fat cell that sticks to arteries. LDL from animal fat is the large buoyant kind that floats in the flood but never sticks to arteries because its to big to. This is why sugar consumption causes artery problems.

We are allowing industry to poison us. That's the problem.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Still lack of self control. I love sodas just like everyone else, but I treat it as a treat, not a drink. I'll have a few sodas each month, just like I have an occasional ice cream.

However, the main issue of lack of self control is not the KINDS of food, but the AMOUNT. I lost 25 pounds just by eating less (5'8, down to 155 from 180). No exercise, no change in diet, no giving up anything permanently. Just freaking eating less.

ANYONE can do that, no matter what you eat.

-t

Unless the food you are eating tricks your brain into always thinking its starving, then its absolute hell. When I lowered my sugar intake by a lot i Found myself not nearly as hungry as before. Was easier to eat less because of it.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Athens 

No no, I mean fructose. Glucose every cell in the body can metabolize. Fructose is only metabolized in the liver and this metabolization in the liver results in a lot of nasty things for the body. The result of fructose consumption is insulin resistance, obesity, more LDL cholesterol, triglycerides and a acid left over in the blood that increases blood pressure. The obesity factor has more to do with causing over eating because it interferes with lipids which controls hunger.

Ah, you're correct. I haven't read up on it lately, and there've been many new studies on the effects of fructose.

Originally Posted by Athens 

We are allowing industry to poison us. That's the problem.

I think there needs to be a level of self control. I don't drink rat poison because I know it's bad for me, so I'm not going to accuse some company of trying to poison me if I drink it.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I don't drink rat poison because I know it's bad for me, so I'm not going to accuse some company of trying to poison me if I drink it.

I'll bet someone has. "I drank rat poison cuz it were in a orange bottle and I thunk it were orange juice" Lawsuit!

[Athens]

Rat poison isn't intended for human consumption. Coke is though.

If its fair to say that you buy a loaf of bread every 4 days from the store for the past 30 years and during that time the same product gets changed to include different chemicals, a different make up of ingredients, ones made to make it last longer. Change out this for that because its cheaper. 30 years later the product is totally different and includes stuff it didn't a couple decades ago, items that make you always feel hungry (so you will eat more and buy more) items that make you fatter because it was cheaper to use those items (saving a buck) and so on, who's to blame. The person happily buying the product they have been buying for 30 years or the company that reengineered the product to be cheaper at the cost of health and to entice over eating again to improve upon sales.

[Athens]

Half of food production is about making it taste good and sell. The other half is about making it as cheap as possible and manipulating consumers and the biochemical process that runs us. Sometimes the manipulation is related to just taste. Making something cheap taste like the original product. Other times its to manipulate the functions in the body for a desired effect. Coke dehydrates you, and makes you consume more liquid and side effect also more food. They knew what they where doing with NEW coke when it came out on the market.

[olePigeon]

I don't think there's a grand conspiracy. If it were purely a chemical addiction, then Coca-Cola and Pepsi wouldn't need to spend so much money on advertising. It comes down to cost. High-fructose corn syrup is a lot cheaper than sugar because our main crop is corn. If you go south of the border, most sodas are made with sugar.

I still think it's up to the person and not the company. If the product is reasonably safe for consumption, then it can be sold. It's not up to the company to nanny the amount you eat/drink. If you're worried about the effects it has on your body, then don't eat or drink it.

[Laminar]

Pick out the fat guy in this discussion.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Unless the food you are eating tricks your brain into always thinking its starving, then its absolute hell. .

Bullshit. I eat the same unhealthy stuff as others. Some McDonalds, some Wendy's, some Five Guys, some Chipotle, some Domino's, some Dunkin Donuts...

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Bullshit. I eat the same unhealthy stuff as others. Some McDonalds, some Wendy's, some Five Guys, some Chipotle, some Domino's, some Dunkin Donuts...

-t

Some people can't tell the difference between "starving" and "not full." From there, it's easy for them to blame everyone but them for their inability to stop eating.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Bullshit. I eat the same unhealthy stuff as others. Some McDonalds, some Wendy's, some Five Guys, some Chipotle, some Domino's, some Dunkin Donuts...

-t

I thought you where in the UK?

BTW almost everything you listed there was food with lots of fat not lots of sugar

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Some people can't tell the difference between "starving" and "not full." From there, it's easy for them to blame everyone but them for their inability to stop eating.

Even dehydration can cause some one cause some one to feel like they are starving when they are just thirsty.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Athens 

9) Mandatory 2 year military service for all men and woman reaching the age of 18-24

Jesus Christ, no!

Having taught basic training a few times, the only people who are worth training are the people who want to be soldiers. People who are there for non-career reasons are a drain on resources. I often had to waste so much time on people who really didn't want to be there that it diminished the training for people who wanted to be soldiers.

The military is not a social program. Solving obseity is not our problem. The quality of recruits is already low because of wider societal issues. Don't make it worse.

Besides, manditory military enrolment is tyranical. It has no place in a free society.

[hyteckit]

All men over the age of 18 needs to enroll in selective service. Don't think mandatory military enrollment is tyrannical.

Just doing your civic duty as a US citizen.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Still lack of self control. I love sodas just like everyone else, but I treat it as a treat, not a drink. I'll have a few sodas each month, just like I have an occasional ice cream.

However, the main issue of lack of self control is not the KINDS of food, but the AMOUNT. I lost 25 pounds just by eating less (5'8, down to 155 from 180). No exercise, no change in diet, no giving up anything permanently. Just freaking eating less.

ANYONE can do that, no matter what you eat.

-t

Correct.

And the funny thing is, you actually enjoy food more when you eat less of it.

The few times in my life when I've gone through a period of cramming food into my face, I've felt bloated, over-satiated and indigestive. As a result, I didn't enjoy food very much.

These days, I probably eat less than I should. But when I do eat, I have a sharp appetite and enjoy food more.

If you're hungry enough, a slice of stale bread can be the most delicious thing you ever ate.

LOLZ!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Bullshit. I eat the same unhealthy stuff as others. Some McDonalds, some Wendy's, some Five Guys, some Chipotle, some Domino's, some Dunkin Donuts...

-t

That's pretty weird food for a turtle to be eating.

I'm starting to think that you are a zookeeper though.

[ghporter]

Self control is only one part of the equation. Two seemingly identical people may experience very different effects from the same food intake or exercise output. Our digestive systems are "trained" by our experience as children, so a person who was poorly nourished or was always encouraged to "clean your plate" will have very different issues from someone who always had enought but was encouraged to only eat until full. There is also the issue of how our metabolisms change with time, particularly how they change at certain milestone-like ages. There's a reason people over 30 often get round; their metabolisms slowed down without their changing their eating habits appropriately.

With the people in the OP, none of this applies. This seems to be a case of complete lack of parenting at an earlier generation, so the parents here have no idea how to say "no" to themselves, let alone their kids. For them, it is all about instant gratification. Self control? How about NO control.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I eat the same unhealthy stuff as others... some Domino's

****. What's wrong with you?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Self control is only one part of the equation. Two seemingly identical people may experience very different effects from the same food intake or exercise output.

I don't get what you're saying. Because isn't self-control the only tool they have? Even if a person is more susceptible to weight gain than average, isn't the answer to this just to compensate using even more self-control? What else is there?

There's a reason people over 30 often get round; their metabolisms slowed down without their changing their eating habits appropriately.

But isn't "changing their eating habits appropriately" just another way of saying self-control? You don't need the fore-knowledge that metabolism changes at 30, all you need is the exact same bio-feedback mechanism we all have at any age: if you get fatter, eat less or exercise more.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

<rant>
[You're right, there are plenty of them out there.]
</rant>

And yet, there are others, like me, who eat like fricking birds every day, religiously, and exercise just as diligently every day, and still manage to carry 40-50 extra pounds for years at a time. Sure, I'm extremely fit (according to my doctors) under this extra weight, but once I got to 35 or so it became next to impossible to loose those pounds.

Also, the level of bias against the overweight in society is huge. It's just assumed that everyone who is overweight is some slob who can't control themselves. Bias is as bias does, I know, but it's still crappy.

Plus, the frequency of "food deserts" is at an all-time high. We're being divided as a society by the availablility of frequent healthy food choices. It's more expensive than ever to eat healthily according to the research.

Yes, there are a lot of these folks out there, the ones that you describe. And they breed and pass it on to their offspring, the bad habits and indifference. It's a growing problem (smirk). And disgusting. But I'm not sure what can be done about it without furthering the pogrom against anyone who carries extra weight, for whatever reason(s).

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

****. What's wrong with you?

It's all someone else's fault.

-t

[Athens]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Jesus Christ, no!

Having taught basic training a few times, the only people who are worth training are the people who want to be soldiers. People who are there for non-career reasons are a drain on resources. I often had to waste so much time on people who really didn't want to be there that it diminished the training for people who wanted to be soldiers.

The military is not a social program. Solving obseity is not our problem. The quality of recruits is already low because of wider societal issues. Don't make it worse.

Besides, manditory military enrolment is tyranical. It has no place in a free society.

The bootcamp was for obesity. The military would be for discipline, structure, and character building. There is no such thing as a bad solder. Just bad trainers. If the people you where training where a waste and drain then you failed them. There is a lot of good reasons for mandatory military service. And there is no such thing as a free society. We just pick and choose what is acceptable and what isn't.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by finboy 

And yet, there are others, like me, who eat like fricking birds every day, religiously, and exercise just as diligently every day, and still manage to carry 40-50 extra pounds for years at a time.

Trying not to be rude, but how much do you weigh, and how tall are you? And what type of exercise (cardio vs weights, etc)?

Plus, the frequency of "food deserts" is at an all-time high. We're being divided as a society by the availablility of frequent healthy food choices. It's more expensive than ever to eat healthily according to the research.

You must be talking about pre-made food, because when you cook your own food you have total control over how healthy it is, through how much sugar, how much oil, and portion size, and the raw ingredients are no less healthy than they were in bygone eras. You might not get "free-range" or "cruelty-free," but on the other hand vegetarian is far cheaper anyway. Cooking from scratch is cheaper than pre-made too.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The military is not a social program. Solving obseity is not our problem. The quality of recruits is already low because of wider societal issues. Don't make it worse.

Besides, manditory military enrolment is tyranical. It has no place in a free society.

I don't agree with you much, but this deserves all my endorsement.

-t

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The military would be for discipline, structure, and character building.

We don't "build character" in the military, we screen out those with bad character in the recruiting process. We make good people better, but we can't make bad people good.

There is no such thing as a bad solder. Just bad trainers. If the people you where training where a waste and drain then you failed them. There is a lot of good reasons for mandatory military service.

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: Some. People. Just. Can't. Hack. It.

And there is no such thing as a free society. We just pick and choose what is acceptable and what isn't.

I can't believe I have to share a nation with people like you.

Canadians have always been against mandatory service; using the draft in WWI was extremely unpopular. And when we were fighting the Nazis, Canadians were opposed to the draft, and so the government didn't use it (though a small number were drafted towards the end of the war for non-deployment roles). It's just not in our national character and ethos.

You think a nation that didn't use the draft to fight the Nazis is gonna use it to fight obesity and build character? You're crazy.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by finboy 

And yet, there are others, like me, who eat like fricking birds every day, religiously, and exercise just as diligently every day, and still manage to carry 40-50 extra pounds for years at a time. Sure, I'm extremely fit (according to my doctors) under this extra weight, but once I got to 35 or so it became next to impossible to loose those pounds.

That's 210-230, depending on build and such. I consider that to be portly, not morbidly obese. One of the whales I saw today must tip the scales at 450lbs, he probably hasn't seen his own feet in decades.

[besson3c]

Athens: no offense, I like you and stuff, but I think your ideas about putting people through basic training or whatever it was you were saying are pretty silly, and it sort of reflects a general way of thinking you seem to have in wanting to reduce incredibly complex human psychology into simple little actionable solutions and expecting predictable results.

There are people that will take to the military well, there are people with whom it would be a train wreck (myself included, although I also don't have the sort of problems you are hoping to solve by putting people through it).

The same goes with your theories about minorities, a number of policy proposals of yours, etc. You can't just prescribe a just-add-water solution to these sorts of problems. You just can't. The best case scenario is policies that cater positively towards the majority of people, with the full expectation that there will be people that just don't work properly with these structures (and then you have to have measures in place to deal with them). The solution is not to just build another structure so that you can continue to bash square pegs into round holes.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's 210-230, depending on build and such. I consider that to be portly, not morbidly obese. One of the whales I saw today must tip the scales at 450lbs, he probably hasn't seen his own feet in decades.

Yeah, I think the sorts of people that disgust Shaddim (and myself, usually) are a whole other category of people. I don't really know why they insist on overeating and not exercising, what their natural weights are (although it's probably safe to say that no human being alive has a natural weight of 450lbs), but I think one has to look at these sort of people with a totally different lens than the portly people that could simply stand to lose 20-40 pounds or whatever.

This could just be my flawed perception, but it seems to me that the majority of overweight men are the sort of men that look like they are pregnant. If you look at the rest of their bodies they don't look like they are naturally heavy, they don't have incredibly flabby arms, back fat, neck fat or whatever, they just have these stupid looking beer guts. I kind of have one I'm not too proud of, although I don't look pregnant (yet).

Anyway, it seems like all of those pregnant looking guys have no excuse talking about genetic disadvantages or whatever, they just need to change their diets and habits (getting the food industry on their side wouldn't hurt either). If we could eliminate all of those dumb looking beer guts, the average adult weight of this country would plummet.

As for the 450lb people, I guess they just need a new brain or something. Maybe their natural weight is 250lbs or something, but that's much different than 400lbs

[lpkmckenna]

Here's a topic story from yesterday: Kevin Smith on being fat.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

We don't "build character" in the military, we screen out those with bad character in the recruiting process. We make good people better, but we can't make bad people good.

Now I am really suspect that you have ever been in the military...

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: Some. People. Just. Can't. Hack. It.

Is that why you are not in the Military any more or was limited to a training position...

I can't believe I have to share a nation with people like you.

I cant believe we keep allowing people like you to immigrate here...

Canadians have always been against mandatory service; using the draft in WWI was extremely unpopular. And when we were fighting the Nazis, Canadians were opposed to the draft, and so the government didn't use it (though a small number were drafted towards the end of the war for non-deployment roles). It's just not in our national character and ethos.

You think a nation that didn't use the draft to fight the Nazis is gonna use it to fight obesity and build character? You're crazy.

2500 made it to the front line in WW2 from the draft, 80 killed... Don't know our history much eh. When it was learned that Dafted people would be sent over seas, there was even a large mutiny here in BC. But I like how you totally evaded what I said, that there is no such thing as freedom, just what is acceptable and whats not which changes all the time... Freedom is a myth, a concept that isn't real in any organised society where one must submit to rules.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Athens: no offense, I like you and stuff, but I think your ideas about putting people through basic training or whatever it was you were saying are pretty silly, and it sort of reflects a general way of thinking you seem to have in wanting to reduce incredibly complex human psychology into simple little actionable solutions and expecting predictable results.

There are people that will take to the military well, there are people with whom it would be a train wreck (myself included, although I also don't have the sort of problems you are hoping to solve by putting people through it).

The same goes with your theories about minorities, a number of policy proposals of yours, etc. You can't just prescribe a just-add-water solution to these sorts of problems. You just can't. The best case scenario is policies that cater positively towards the majority of people, with the full expectation that there will be people that just don't work properly with these structures (and then you have to have measures in place to deal with them). The solution is not to just build another structure so that you can continue to bash square pegs into round holes.

I think mandatory service would do a lot of people a lot of good. Especially as parents are being more and more inept with each generation. A friend from Chile and a friend from Turkey both said it was one of the best experiences they ever had and gave them the tools to do well afterwards. I am not military material but had it been a mandatory requirement I bet I would have taken a lot out of it that would have served me well for the rest of my life. Canadians and Americans have gotten lazy in all respects. We are lazy at parenting. We are lazy at work. We are lazy with the home life. We are also a burnt out people working longer days, working under more stressful conditions while income shrinks and prices increase causing situations where we don't want to do anything except be lazy.

I don't think 2 years of service is very extreme at all. Can still keep over seas service separate for only those who commit to military service beyond the mandatory period.

I think pricing of sugars and removing corn subsidies would do a lot more to change food though.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

We don't "build character" in the military, we screen out those with bad character in the recruiting process. We make good people better, but we can't make bad people good.

This seems like wishful thinking given some of the behaviour and attitude you see from soldiers.


I've often thought the military could supplement their income a bit by running fat camps. They have all the equipment and motivational staff already after all. The only question is whether you make it mandatory for people who hit a certain BMI.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

We don't "build character" in the military, we screen out those with bad character in the recruiting process. We make good people better, but we can't make bad people good.

Actually, recruitment looks for potential, not necessarily established character. This is different from "moral character" which is what they call what you seem to be referring to. Strong character is a combination of sound moral character (or "ethical" character if you prefer) and a good grounding in how the individual and his actions impact the larger world. Character building in military training seeks to develop integrity, judgement, and a sense of both duty and purpose.

Sadly, this process is not always successful. Throughout my career, I was warned, chided, regulated and monitored because others had been just plain stupid. Instructors in the middle enlisted ranks "sleeping with" their students, senior field grade officers enticing young enlisted women to perform favors in exchange for promises of favorable assignments, etc. I always found it much simpler to actually follow the rules and "do the right thing" than to even consider taking advantage of "nobody is looking" or of someone's trust in me...

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Now I am really suspect that you have ever been in the military...

Is that why you are not in the Military any more or was limited to a training position...

I cant believe we keep allowing people like you to immigrate here...

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, so you fill your head with false assumptions. I'm still in the military, I'm not an immigrant, I haven't been an instructor in several years.

2500 made it to the front line in WW2 from the draft, 80 killed... Don't know our history much eh. When it was learned that Dafted people would be sent over seas, there was even a large mutiny here in BC.

You made my point for me: the draft is extremely unpopular in Canada, and always will be.

And I said people were drafted for non-deployment roles, and they were. A small number of those were screwed over and sent overseas, but that was not why they were drafted.

But I like how you totally evaded what I said

Because, frankly, I don't care about your ideas about freedom. I have to assume you don't believe in fairness, equality, democracy, human rights, or dignity either, because attitudes to those things change too. You're a cynic, and arguing with a cynic about human values is a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This seems like wishful thinking given some of the behaviour and attitude you see from soldiers.

Nothing's perfect, especially the recruiting process. And most problems with discipline are the result of bad leadership, not poor recruitment.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I've often thought the military could supplement their income a bit by running fat camps. They have all the equipment and motivational staff already after all.

Not in the military I belong to. Everything and everyone is stretched thin.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Actually, recruitment looks for potential, not necessarily established character. This is different from "moral character" which is what they call what you seem to be referring to.

When I say we screen out bad character, I mean we screen out racists, drug users, people with criminal records or problems with debt, people so lazy they can't even do a few push ups, and so on.

You don't need much "potential" to be an ordinary soldier (at least compared to a university student or athlete or musician), and every military in the world is filled with people of limited capability that can do their own role well because the division of labour in the military is designed with the average man in mind. The recruitment process does recognize high potential and streams good quality applicants into suitable roles for them. But we have lots of jobs for other kinds of people too.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

We don't "build character" in the military, we screen out those with bad character in the recruiting process. We make good people better, but we can't make bad people good.

Fred On Everything

[Athens]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, so you fill your head with false assumptions. I'm still in the military, I'm not an immigrant, I haven't been an instructor in several years.

Great.... I just lost all faith my military...

And I said people were drafted for non-deployment roles, and they were. A small number of those were screwed over and sent overseas, but that was not why they were drafted.

Um and what purpose is there to draft people if not because of a shortage of personal.

Because, frankly, I don't care about your ideas about freedom. I have to assume you don't believe in fairness, equality, democracy, human rights, or dignity either, because attitudes to those things change too. You're a cynic, and arguing with a cynic about human values is a waste of time.

Fairness, equality, democracy, human rights are all concepts are all concepts that go against the natural order of things and like freedom is just a illusion. Sure great efforts are made to try and make things fair and more equal but that isn't the reality of things. Every single person has some level of racism and discrimination built into them. Most just wont admit it. And every one has suffered from it more then a few times and don't admit or recognize it either. Just some things are more acceptable to discriminate against then others. It was only 60 years ago the word NI&&ER wouldn't have even caused some one to take a second look at some one for saying it. While today that word is unpopular there is still a lot of other forms of discrimination that is still accepted. Fat people for example seems most people agree is ok to discriminate against. Age is still something people discriminate against with out even realizing it. The only true freedom a person has is the ability to fight for the freedoms they want. My friend off the boat Asian landlord (been here 3 years) has been trying to evict me for months now because she no like men who sleep with men. I've fought through the system and won every battle thus far. I could have just gave up and left like most would of, but I will fight to the bitter end to protect the systems and rules in place to keep the illusions we have a live a little longer.

When I say we screen out bad character, I mean we screen out racists, drug users, people with criminal records or problems with debt, people so lazy they can't even do a few push ups, and so on.

So much discrimination. People with debt... shesh.

Nothing's perfect, especially the recruiting process. And most problems with discipline are the result of bad leadership, not poor recruitment.

But if discipline fixes everything then why discriminate against racists, drug users, people with criminal records, problems with debt and lazy people.

You don't need much "potential" to be an ordinary soldier (at least compared to a university student or athlete or musician), and every military in the world is filled with people of limited capability that can do their own role well because the division of labour in the military is designed with the average man in mind. The recruitment process does recognize high potential and streams good quality applicants into suitable roles for them. But we have lots of jobs for other kinds of people too.

I'm still not convinced you served or are serving in the military here. Just to clarify you are talking about Canada and not the country you came from?

[besson3c]

Athens, you ignored or missed my post, so perhaps I'll just be more pithy by restating what I said before...

Your military idea sucks, to be blunt. I probably would have gone crazy in a bad way being in the military, it most likely would have accomplished nothing positive for me, and I'm certain there are countless others for which this would also apply.

You are trying to prescribe a simple set of solutions to complex problems and expecting them to work across the board. Stuff doesn't work that way, it just doesn't. That's what Republicans in America do.