Sugar tax and offers ban 'would work' says report

In Britain a quarter of people are obese and 61% are overweight or obese, so I think at this point it's probably fair to say it's more than 'some people'.

It's a serious public health problem, and the thing about it is that's it *not* because people are lazy or lacking self control - so many factors about modern society contribute to the epidemic: sedentary lifestyles, cheap processed foods, family cars - all things that are very very difficult to avoid.

I reckon anything that makes people think about the amount of sugar in their diet is helpful, as well as anything that might stop food companies adding sugar. It's not just sweets and fizzy drinks, it's 'hidden' sugar too in things like ready meals and pasta sauces that you wouldn't even think about normally.

How about we start to treat society in such a way that the individuals have to actually *shock horror* take responsibility for themselves. No, they don't have to take responsibility for kids starving in Africa, nor people who get upset when you address them by the wrong pronouns, nor feminists who think that the world revolves around them. Just themselves. Wouldn't that be a good place to start?

That sounds like a nightmare. We need to look after everyone. Selfishness is one of the most deplorable qualities possible in a person.

In a society like you envisaged, who cares for the children who can't stay with their parents? Those who need to be taken into care? Who looks after the elderly with dementia and need 24 hour intensive support? Who helps the most vulnerable people in our society if we are all supposed to look after ourselves and nobody else? Those who are unable to care for themselves would end up paying. No child should be neglected or abused. Those that are should receive the proper support. This is impossible in a world where nobody looks after anyone else.

We live in one world and it is the responsibility of all of us to look after each other.

Posted from TSR Mobile

The point is that before we can do all that we should start by being able to take responsibility for ourselves. You need to be able to do that before you can have kids or start caring for others. It's a pretty old idea that Buddhists have been saying right back to the dhammapada. Not exactly rocket science love.

It's is also not the responsibility of us all to take care of people we aren't remotely beholden to. The only people we should be responsible for are the people we know and love.

Who loves the loveless?

Posted from TSR Mobile

People who take care of them out of the kindness of their heart. It's not their responsibility though.

The issue is increased calorie intake. It doesn't really matter whether its from.

'Sugar' is just the latest boogeyman. Before it was fats and cholesterol.

Supermarkets will just pass the cost onto the consumer.

If we take responsibility for only ourselves then these people will be left to rot. We each have a responsibility to everyone else in the world. Leaving the care of the most vulnerable to the kindness of strangers is a guarantee that they will receive no care.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Why don't they just ban everything but cardboard tasting nutrient paste and be done with it then?

On the plus side for the government it'll be more money into their pockets.

This is all just prattle because you're using the term "responsibility" in a way which doesn't actually mean anything. You haven't logically defined what you mean by "responsibility". It's all just sloppy LiveAid bollox. Are we born with this responsibility to everyone else in the entire world? How and why are we beholden to everyone else in the world? Do you really place so little trust in the human spirit that you believe that if you don't put social pressure on people to help the vulnerable, their wouldn't be anyone who'd help them altruistically?

What do you actually mean by "responsibility"?

A thought experiment: If we discovered a planet much like our own, thriving with life as intelligent and compassionate as humans, which needed help, would we be responsible for them? What if a space ship passed just at the edge of the earth's atmosphere which was about to explode and we could only help them by spending millions on rescuing them. Would that be our responsibility too? Or is our responsibility just confined to this earth? If so, why? Why isn't it just confined to our own countries, or our own villages, or even just our own families and friends?

How about we start to treat society in such a way that the individuals have to actually *shock horror* take responsibility for themselves. No, they don't have to take responsibility for kids starving in Africa, nor people who get upset when you address them by the wrong pronouns, nor feminists who think that the world revolves around them. Just themselves. Wouldn't that be a good place to start?

Great idea. Let the moronic masses become even more moronic by choosing not to let their children go to school, let people take whatever drugs they want without restriction or assistance. Let people gorge themselves on whatever food they want, let abusive parents continue mistreating their children, let further people become homeless and pollute the streets.. etc etc.

In the Victorian era, there was no welfare state. Children grew up in poverty as a result. When the tories left office in 1997 a third of children were living in poverty. When labour left office, this had dropped to less than a fifth. We have a responsibility to everyone else because we are human.

If we have the ability to help another, we should do. Regardless of who they are.

Posted from TSR Mobile