According to wiki answers, there are 200 calories in a 16 oz. coca cola. I think that there are roughly as many calories in a small bag of chewy sprees (a fruit flavored candy). I believe that the nutritional content in both is pretty much the same. They're both worthless.
But who, do you think, is more likely to eat something soon afterwards? If you eat the bag of candy, there's a greater psychological/physiological inclination to abstain from more food afterwards. Why? Because you just ate.
The same does not hold true of a soda. Why should you abstain from eating something after you drink that coke? You drank something. You didn't eat something.
Of course, the actual nutritional intake is pretty much the same. But there's a difference in how the two items affect you psychologically/physiologically.
See above. How likely is it that you will eat lunch and then 2 apple turnovers? How likely is it that you will eat lunch and, over the course of eating lunch, drink 2 large sodas?
Again, how likely is it that you'll eat an apple turnover every day?
How likely is it that you'll drink a soda every day?
How likely is it that you'll eat more than one apple turnover every day?
How likely is it that you'll drink more than one soda every day?
Presumably, more people will simply switch to diet soda.
I've given a lengthy argument in answer to LightBringer, in particular, citing both Aristotle and Aquinas to the contrary. This argument revolved around two things: 1. the idea that man is at the same time both a whole and a part and 2. the idea that our actions have public implications.
I gave 4 ways in which these actions have public implications. You've only addressed one of them.
And even if you addressed all of them, so what? The more fundamental point remains: man isn't an atomistic whole. He is a part to the whole which is the political order.
This. You only mentioned one of the points I made. I made four of them. I'll expound them here:
1. National defense. Consider the following: World War III breaks out. The US doesn't have enough people in the military. They need to break out the draft. Half of the nation, let's say, is obese. Of those who are not obese, half of them are too old or are disqualified from service for other reasons. The future isn't looking too bright for America, is it?
2. Obesity causes lots and lots of expensive health problems. That guy who's been saying "It's my business, not yours, what I eat" for 50 years is now making it someone else's business. In fact, lots of other peoples' business. He needs a doctor to treat him. He needs a pharmacist to dole out prescriptions. He needs the help of his family, perhaps, which he otherwise would not have needed. He needs his insurance to pay for things which otherwise they would not have needed to pay for.
You get the idea.
3. Work productivity. Fat, unhealthy, out of shape people don't like to move much. Nuff said.
4. It changes the kind of political order.
Say "it's my business, not yours" all you want. When that guy walks out of his house, I have to look at him when he's riding around on a scooter in Wal-Mart.
Say "it's my business, not yours" all you want. Since so many fat women say that, there are fewer attractive women to pursue.
Say "it's my business, not yours" all you want. But I have to be uncomfortable when some obese person sits next to me in a movie theater or on an airplane, and his buttcheek takes up half my seat.
Let the obese person say "it's my business, not yours" all you want. But he wants to join me on an elevator. He wants to walk too slowly down an aisle or on a sidewalk, and his size won't let me pass.
"His business, not mine?" It is my business. If I have to deal with him, then it's my business.
:idunno:
When you say "gateaux," do you mean cake? If so, I think it should be "gateau." The "x" indicates a plural. In any case, addressed above.
So what's your problem? It's not as though you're arguing for a complete libertarianism. Even you admit that the state can ban things which affect public health.
