Height vs. Weight

before delving clearly into today's topic i would like to make a few rebuttals to the cons current stance as follows: 1.there are only around 200 scienticians around and i will provide link to prove so. but provided even if you are right, they are still in the clear minority when it comes to decision making. 2.I hope the con is aware as to what the IPCC really is......it is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control and it has in no way propagated a change in human lifestyle as stated by the con. please do clarify in your next statement 3. the issue of labeling- it will be dealt in my own arguments so moving on to my own arguments, at first i was going to clearly show the house point by point how this is well withing the bounds of the government and it is in merit to the society as a whole but seeing the CON misconception i have changed my format to who and why so first moving on to who: first taking on the party that majority of the blame has been placed on,ie the scienticians, they are a group of individuals who have an expanded knowledge in both the sciences and mathematics. now it is well within their right to carry out experiments and investigations, after all we all have the right to knowledge and isnt this exactly what it is the right to knowledge? the only case in which they could have been in the wrong is when the governing body of the area in which they are carrying out said investigations or any other calculations directly forbids them not to do so, which is clearly not the case. so they were in the right. secondly the ruling body(referred to as state for convenience)- they are a group of individuals who come together to form a coalition of people who will oversee the running of their designated area. they may debate and pass legislature provided that it is in their power, in the cases of the cons argument the USA has such authority.now i would like to futher analyze this in 2 ways: a)using the said example of USA again i would like to point out that the ruling body is chosen by society taking that train of thought they also run by norms set by society, so when the question of subjectivity is raised it should be noted that the government is subjective to legislature put forward by the objective people thereby leading to the conclusion that it is in fact the society that wants such a move. b)this state decision will indefinitely affect all civilians which is why the outrage of CON is seen, well the politicians too are aware of this and they are often known as people pleasers do you really think they they would have made such a call without already being aware of their repercussions of such an act? clearly in their rare decision making minds the pros have outweighed the cons or we would not be discussing this today.they would have had larger arguments than the con today and yet decided it is better to pass it. so why should they do it? there are multitudes of social, economical and cultural values involved as follows 1)social aspect so what is it they are essentially trying to do they are trying to set a perfect body structure for natives of that region. in doing so they are ensuring that a larger number of people are healthy and fit.this has many social implications. let us the example of a fat kid, now maybe society has gone past the "fat kid hate" but we still see many people who shun away fat people which is proven by the social experiment given below. this legislature provides them with a rule to conform to and will help the outside the margin children to take better care of their bodies since they regulations will not be extremist rather the moderate healthy range of the height/weight ratio. it will also help society to get over their regular condescension of people who are obese or extremely underweight since they will no longer exist. to deal with the issue of labeling- it is much like peer pressure in this case the proposition feels that this is in fact constructive as what does it lead to? it leads to more people wanting to be fit and if we can use this labeling to achieve something like that when we already use it for things such as alcohol and tobacco, why not do so?? 2)economical-there is a economical side to this debate , in ensuring that people follow such guidelines which are set it will result in a nation that is much more healthy and fit in turn allowing larger number of people to join the workforce and to help the country's economy. leading to a stable nation. which is clearly the interest of all person in any given society. social experiment- so without moving into any further arguments i hope i have already clearly shown the house how this is a step forward in a nation and although many of us may resent this we must all admit that in the end it is for a greater good. it has social and economical benefits and clearly even if it is a wrong decision, it is one society made. "we may be right we may be wrong; but how will we know if we do not try?"-darshan Note:CON seeing as you have yet to bring up any arguments to the house I concede to let you use the last round to bring up new points. good luck Darshan