Holy crap. I wish I was about 80 years old and on my way out. This **** is getting too stupid to bear.
They may as well starting taking kids away from everyone since they obviously know everything there is to know about raising them and we know nothing.
I don't even have to say anything, do I?
The only thing that I can say is that while we all may have differing opinions on a wide variety of sensitive topics, I think we have some common ground that the government really needs to get the hell out of our lives.
We do not allow chocolat flavored cyanide, so why do we allow sodas?
Cuz we have this really stupid idea that people should be able to make up their own minds.
Cuz we have this really stupid idea that people should be able to make up their own minds.
lol, since when?
We do not allow chocolat flavored cyanide, so why do we allow sodas?
Cuz we have this really stupid idea that people should be able to make up their own minds.
But are people aware of all the information?
It just doesn't matter. The more the State can control the raising of our children, the less freedom we have as a people. The government should only ever intervene if there is direct and/or immenent danger to the child from the parents actions. Poison = direct and immenenent danger to the child. Soda =/= direct and/or immenent danger to a child.
The problem is that the base lifestyle in our culture has become more sedentary and more consumptive. People talk and talk about the contents of our food and such, but in the end it is a matter of simple math: when calories consumed exceed calories expended the body has a surplus.
I agree the involvement of the state in our lives should be limited. But I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about banning stuff that are just bad for us. Adults and children. Something bad for you doesn't have to be direct or immenent. This doesn't concern people, but compagnies and what they can produce and sell. We do this all the time.
The State does not have the right to determine that for us. If it did, we'd all be governed into submission. Smoking is bad for us. Everyone has to stop! Many things we eat are bad for us. We can only eat what Big Brother says we can! Driving is bad for us. Oil is bad for us. Emissions are bad for us. Too much sunlight is bad for us. There are TONS of things that you are subjected to on a daily basis that are bad for you.
Of course out right banning would be impossible and cause alot of ecconomic problems from all the job loss. Maybe start with taxes on unhealthy products. Do like they do on cigarette packs, and show fat people on soda bottles. Ban advertissing...
Those "solutions" are not only unnecessary, but they would also cause a lot of economic problems and job loss. No. The best solution is to tell the government where to go stick it when they try to determine every little thing we can or cannot do in our lives.
I agree the involvement of the state in our lives should be limited. But I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about banning stuff that are just bad for us. Adults and children. Something bad for you doesn't have to be direct or immenent. This doesn't concern people, but compagnies and what they can produce and sell. We do this all the time.
The State does not have the right to determine that for us. If it did, we'd all be governed into submission. Smoking is bad for us. Everyone has to stop! Many things we eat are bad for us. We can only eat what Big Brother says we can! Driving is bad for us. Oil is bad for us. Emissions are bad for us. Too much sunlight is bad for us. There are TONS of things that you are subjected to on a daily basis that are bad for you.
Of course out right banning would be impossible and cause alot of ecconomic problems from all the job loss. Maybe start with taxes on unhealthy products. Do like they do on cigarette packs, and show fat people on soda bottles. Ban advertissing...
Those "solutions" are not only unnecessary, but they would also cause a lot of economic problems and job loss. No. The best solution is to tell the government where to go stick it when they try to determine every little thing we can or cannot do in our lives.
My name is Robin_Hoodlum, and I approve of this message.
I'd be curious to know the amount of sugar in sodas over the years. Now a cane of coke has 41 grammes of sugar in it. That is huge. I wonder if it was always like that.
But food has an impact. Take different cultures with different food habits, like France and Japan, and they have alot less fat people. But I agree that being active also has a big impact.
Yep. Infact when they changed coke at one point it nearly destroyed the brand. So they put it back the way it was.
Think about Japan and France, people walk everywhere. Because of the distance from home to work tends to be much shorter. (though France is now having a rising obesity rate as well.) So it encourages walking.
Which at the end of the day makes you more active, and people that are already active tend to take better care of their bodies.
Soda is not the problem, McDonalds is not the problem the problem is people are too stupid and lazy to even bother taking care of themselves, with excercize and a dose of this thing... it's called self control... omg!
The State does not have the right to determine that for us. If it did, we'd all be governed into submission. Smoking is bad for us. Everyone has to stop! Many things we eat are bad for us. We can only eat what Big Brother says we can! Driving is bad for us. Oil is bad for us. Emissions are bad for us. Too much sunlight is bad for us. There are TONS of things that you are subjected to on a daily basis that are bad for you.
Wait, are you saying that you don't mind living in an area where a company can pollute as much as it wants even though it is bad for your health?
Which begs the question, if the government shouldn't ban what is bad for you, why should we let it ban drugs?
Wait, are you saying that you don't mind living in an area where a company can pollute as much as it wants even though it is bad for your health?
No. Excessive polution falls into the direct and immenent danger catagory.
Which begs the question, if the government shouldn't ban what is bad for you, why should we let it ban drugs?
Many drugs are more than bad for you, they are very lethal for you. Further, while under the affects of many of these drugs, you are a direct danger to others.
It's a foreign concept to most people, but Self Control will keep the flab off with proper excercise.
Self Control in general is a foreign concept. And this is a prime example.
We don't need the government to tell us Soda is bad.
No Duh. Just like candy bars are.
Just like Ice Cream is. It's a dessert item. Something to consume every once in a while. Not swig it down morning, noon and night.
If my kid was going to school, and I was told that I had to buy the school food for my kid I'd tell them to stick it, and take my kid home for lunch every day. That or I'd sue the **** out of them. I've seen what they serve at schools. I know what they still serve at schools as I work in them. Guess what? Almost nothing you can give them from home comes even close to being as bad for your kid as the slop they tried to stuff down your kid's throats.
This is about one thing really and that's that Chicago wants to make more $. It has nothing to do with safety or the healthyness of america's youth.
Sorry, but that more grease than meat mystery burger is -worse- for my kid than a cole cut sandwhich with a slice of cheese. Even if you gave that kid 4 cans of coke in that lunch pale to go with it.
No. Excessive polution falls into the direct and immenent danger catagory.
Not really. It depends on the pollution and how you come in contact with it. Smog is bad for you, but it takes a long time to really kill you. Even the pollution from an oil spill won’t kill you unless you go swimming in it and decide to drink a gallon of it.
Many drugs are more than bad for you, they are very lethal for you.
Depends on the quantity that you take in at one time.
Further, while under the affects of many of these drugs, you are a direct danger to others.
Alcohol comes to mind.
Alcohol comes to mind.
Yet weed doesn't. Yay double standards
Also this is stupid. If you don't want parents to give kids unhealthy crap for lunch, put a ban on unhealthy crap, not on homebrought food.
I agree the involvement of the state in our lives should be limited. But I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about banning stuff that are just bad for us. Adults and children. Something bad for you doesn't have to be direct or immenent. This doesn't concern people, but compagnies and what they can produce and sell. We do this all the time.
The State does not have the right to determine that for us. If it did, we'd all be governed into submission. Smoking is bad for us. Everyone has to stop! Many things we eat are bad for us. We can only eat what Big Brother says we can! Driving is bad for us. Oil is bad for us. Emissions are bad for us. Too much sunlight is bad for us. There are TONS of things that you are subjected to on a daily basis that are bad for you.
The bold part is just not true. The government makes sure that ground meat respects certain hygene norms, too many bacterias and it is bye bye for that batch. Leed and mercury are reglemented in different products. Tonnes of food and other products are reglemented or just banned to protect us. Drugs are a good example.
Poisons and deadly bacteria are NOT the same as a freaking peanut butter and jelly sandwich for my child. The State does not have the right to dictate to me what non-deadly things I can feed my child.
For the rest, some stuff is hard to control like sunlight, but cars aren't.
It would be easy to require you to stay indoors for all but 4 hours on a sunny day.
Laws are made for cars to be safer (mendatory seat belts in cars) and make them less polluting.
1) no seat belt means you are an immenent danger to anyone else in the car with you and to pedestrians that you might hit when ejected from your vehicle. I was against seat belt laws until someone pointed out to me that they also protect other innocents from the stupidity of the person who doesn't want to wear a seat belt.
2) Excessive polution is poisonous. Peanut butter and jelly sandwhiches are not.
And this is not a question of big brother. We do not need sodas to live, this is not a question of freedom.
It absolutely is about freedom. We don't need most of what we have to live. You don't need a car. You don't need a yard for your house. You don't need most food and drink types that you eat and drink. You don't need T.V. You don't need books, radio, games, etc. You don't need a computer or the internet. You don't need a telephone. You don't need children. You don't need pets. I could go on for a VERY long time on what you don't need in order to live.
I guess by your logic I can take all that away from you without affecting your freedom.
Jobs are lost everyday. The western's world economy is changing. This would just a be a drop. We ust need to focus on a knowledge based economy for the future.
The western economy is changing for the worse and I don't want to end up like Greece or Spain, which is the direction the U.S. is traveling right now.
Or that they don't have any -quality- physical ed courses? (where they actually make you Do Stuff. Not sit around and do next to nothing in a gym for 30 minutes)
Of course out right banning would be impossible and cause alot of ecconomic problems from all the job loss. Maybe start with taxes on unhealthy products. Do like they do on cigarette packs, and show fat people on soda bottles. Ban advertissing...
My state of Illinois already has taxed candy and softdrinks, along with my tea. Other states have done similar things and some cities have outright banned things that thought promoted unhealthy behavior.
If my kid was going to school, and I was told that I had to buy the school food for my kid I'd tell them to stick it, and take my kid home for lunch every day. That or I'd sue the **** out of them. I've seen what they serve at schools. I know what they still serve at schools as I work in them. Guess what? Almost nothing you can give them from home comes even close to being as bad for your kid as the slop they tried to stuff down your kid's throats.
Lunches from home would suddenly become part of my religion ;)
Not really. It depends on the pollution and how you come in contact with it. Smog is bad for you, but it takes a long time to really kill you. Even the pollution from an oil spill won’t kill you unless you go swimming in it and decide to drink a gallon of it.
Too much of it and the danger IS immenent and direct. I did NOT say immediate ;)
Depends on the quantity that you take in at one time.
And that amount varies from person to person depending on many factors that require a Doctor to determine.
Alcohol comes to mind.
Thank you for proving my point. Alchohol is heavily regulated and punished if abused.
We don't need the government to tell us Soda is bad.
And what is bad about soda? Carbonated water? Caffeine? Flavorings? Sugar? Do you know what the biggest difference between orange juice and orange soda is? Carbonation and caffeine. (And some sodas are caffeine free.)
Soda isn't bad. What's bad is that people don't realize that it is basically a liquid candy bar. Candy bars aren't bad either. Living off of candy bars, however, is bad.
Just about anything in high enough quantity is bad for you. Even water.
So you wanna get married? I can switch to feed for ya.
Sorry I'm taken.
Thank you for proving my point. Alchohol is heavily regulated and punished if abused.
I was under the impression that "I was drunk" was a valid excuse in court that led to you getting punished less instead of more.
If my kid was going to school, and I was told that I had to buy the school food for my kid I'd tell them to stick it, and take my kid home for lunch every day. That or I'd sue the **** out of them. I've seen what they serve at schools. I know what they still serve at schools as I work in them. Guess what? Almost nothing you can give them from home comes even close to being as bad for your kid as the slop they tried to stuff down your kid's throats.
Pretty much this. When I was in Middle School or so, I had chronic migraines. Like 3-5 days out of the week my head would be killing me by the end of the day. I started bringing lunch from home and they vanished overnight. Go figure >_>.
I was under the impression that "I was drunk" was a valid excuse in court that led to you getting punished less instead of more.
Nope. If you're drunk and someone dies in a car accident with you, you get hit with murder charges. If you're not drunk, the charges are less or non-existent for the same accident. In the last few decades, people have become very intollerant of drunk people causing harm. You KNOW before you take your first drink that if you drink and drive, bad things are more likely to happen, so you are responsible for anything extra that happens if you CHOOSE to get drunk.
Too much of it and the danger IS immenent and direct. I did NOT say immediate ;)
Yes, but emminent is debatable. How long should it take for some type of pollution to kill you? A minute? A week? A year? 40 years? Fat will do the same thing. You may not die from eating one hamburger, but eat enough fat for 40 years and you may have problems. So whaat is the difference between unhealthy food and pollution?
And that amount varies from person to person depending on many factors that require a Doctor to determine.
same goes for fats and other unhealthy foods.
Thank you for proving my point. Alchohol is heavily regulated and punished if abused.
Exactly. Why can't the same be done with other drugs?
I was under the impression that "I was drunk" was a valid excuse in court that led to you getting punished less instead of more.
Nope. If you're drunk and someone dies in a car accident with you, you get hit with murder charges. If you're not drunk, the charges are less or non-existent for the same accident. In the last few decades, people have become very intollerant of drunk people causing harm. You KNOW before you take your first drink that if you drink and drive, bad things are more likely to happen, so you are responsible for anything extra that happens if you CHOOSE to get drunk.
Cool. It seems the times, they are 'a changing. For the better, on this one.
Too much of it and the danger IS immenent and direct. I did NOT say immediate ;)
Yes, but emminent is debatable. How long should it take for some type of pollution to kill you? A minute? A week? A year? 40 years? Fat will do the same thing. You may not die from eating one
The biggest is that each individual chooses to eat unhealthy food or not.
The biggest is that each individual chooses to eat unhealthy food or not.
You can choose wher eyou live can't you?
We don't need the government to tell us Soda is bad.
And what is bad about soda? Carbonated water? Caffeine? Flavorings? Sugar? Do you know what the biggest difference between orange juice and orange soda is? Carbonation and caffeine. (And some sodas are caffeine free.)
Soda isn't bad. What's bad is that people don't realize that it is basically a liquid candy bar. Candy bars aren't bad either. Living off of candy bars, however, is bad.
Just about anything in high enough quantity is bad for you. Even water.
To be fair in context I didn't say it was any worse than candy bars, and ice cream.
My posts have been about Self Control and moderation while consuming food. :-p
Yes, but emminent is debatable. How long should it take for some type of pollution to kill you? A minute? A week? A year? 40 years? Fat will do the same thing. You may not die from eating one hamburger, but eat enough fat for 40 years and you may have problems. So whaat is the difference between unhealthy food and pollution?
That's simple. I have no personal control over polution sources outside of my home that are killing me. I have absolute control over my food intake and physical exercise. If fat kills me after 40 years, it's because I chose for it to do so.
same goes for fats and other unhealthy foods.
Absolutely incorrect. It does not take a doctor to know those things.
Exactly. Why can't the same be done with other drugs?
Because the vast majority of them are far worse than alchohol.
Is it a choice? If your parents always feed you crap and only teach you to eat and make crap, chances are you'll eat crap as an adult.
Making crap unaccessable solve that problem. In part at least. Being active is also part of the solution.
And that right there is the problem. It's not Soda's fault you're a fat slob. It's the fact that you guzzle down four glasses a day. It's the fact that you stuff your face with three double cheeseburgers.
Making anything 'unaccessable' solves nothing. here's the problem with that logic. People will make their own. Ever hear of this thing called prohibition? Here's a hint as to how well it worked.
It Didn't.
It all comes down to physical activity. I could scarf down 3 utterly decked plates of food at a buffet line in high school. I didn't gain a pound from doing so. Why? Because I was incredibly active physically.
Most of the time I didn't eat like that, because frankly my family couldn't support that kind of lifestyle. And secondly, I'd never let myself go that far. Thirdly I actually didn't eat enough for the amount of excercise and general activity level I maintained.
The whole problem is America has convinced itself that exercise is not required to stay healthy and fit. America has deluded itself into thinking being a walking tub of cholesterol is not only okay, but perfectly normal. And that stuffing your face with 3 to 4 thousand calories a day when they only burn 1,500 at most is part of normal living.
That's simple. I have no personal control over polution sources outside of my home that are killing me. I have absolute control over my food intake and physical exercise. If fat kills me after 40 years, it's because I chose for it to do so.
Do you grow your own food? Mske your oen peanut butter? Keep milk cows? You are dependent on the companies that do that for you. As such, you don't have as much control as you think.
Absolutely incorrect. It does not take a doctor to know those things.
No, that is incorrect. Not everyone processes nutrients the same way, and not everyone knoows if they have a problem processing those nutrients. Glutten is one of those things that you need to get tested for. I had a friend who was apperantly allergic to glutten. He had no idea. For 35 years he has been eating regular food that contained glutten and last year he finally found out he had it. it isn't as bad as some other people, he does not process glutten like you or I.
Because the vast majority of them are far worse than alchohol.
That is debatable as well.
Depends on the peanut butter and the jelly. Alot have too much sugar in them and transfat. Not good for you and yes, deadly. But they can't stop you from putting the bad stuff in white bread sandwiches. But they can ban the bad stuff.
Those things are only a danger if I ALSO choose not to exercise or eat right in other ways. It's not for the government or anyone else to dictate to me what I eat.
Well the we are in a totalitarian regime. This is not what we are talking about.
It absolutely is what we are talking about. These small losses of freedom add up and grow larger. Becoming a totalitarian regime is what is at risk here. Every year dozens of freedoms are swallowed up in the U.S. and it's getting worse and worse by the year. I want an end to it now!
Just look at the stupid things they put us through at airports to stop terrorists, despite the fact that less people have died in the U.S. in the last 30 years, than in one month car accidents here. Yet people don't have the same fear of car accidents that they do of terrorism? Why is that? Because the government can control and limit the population more effectively if they play up the fear and danger of terrorism. We were safe enough prior to 9/11 and there was no need to add all the idiotic scans and crap they put us through.
And making sure manufacturers have to put seat belts in is giving your passengers the option.
How do you figure? How is putting in a seatbelt giving the passenger the option to seatbelt you the driver, who is a danger to them if you aren't seatbelted?
Yo uare mixing too many things too getter. Cell phones are needed in our society.
No they aren't. They are a luxury that is completely unnecessary. People who don't have them (and there are a lot) do just fine.
Communication is very important now. Just think of applying for a job and they can't call you back.
It may reduce things, but they aren't NECESSARY. It isn't a NEED. It's a luxury advantage and nothing more.
Radio/tv are also an important tool of mass communication.
And yet completely not needed in order to live your life.
If something bad happens people need to be informed.
I can assure you that my life would not have been negatively impacted to miss out on hearing about Japan, Libya and many other bad things. I would probably be happier, actually. People WANT to know. They don't NEED to know.
Greece and Spain aren't the result of banning bad food.
No. They're the result ofn increased taxes, too many government workers, pensions that are too high and other social programs that are unsustainable. You know, those changes in the western economy that you referred to. ;)
The biggest is that each individual chooses to eat unhealthy food or not.
You can choose wher eyou live can't you?
No, I'm locked into my area do to lack of funds, job availability, and a mortgage.
Too much of it and the danger IS immenent and direct. I did NOT say immediate ;)
Yes, but emminent is debatable. How long should it take for some type of pollution to kill you? A minute? A week? A year? 40 years? Fat will do the same thing. You may not die from eating one
The biggest is that each individual chooses to eat unhealthy food or not.
Is it a choice? If your parents always feed you crap and only teach you to eat and make crap, chances are you'll eat crap as an adult.
Making crap unaccessable solve that problem. In part at least. Being active is also part of the solution.
It is a choice like how the children are choosing to throw away allot of the healthy food the schools are that is being forced to serve to them rather than eat it. Even being served junk you can choose to change your eating habits. The only limitation is the availability of other types of food.
Additionally you have failed to show that this will affect food choices over the long term, and just assumed that it would and the "crap" as you put it have not been made unaccessible, but rather been barred from one or two meals during the work week. The same eating habit would still be allowed to form.
Is it a choice? If your parents always feed you crap and only teach you to eat and make crap, chances are you'll eat crap as an adult.
Making crap unaccessable solve that problem. In part at least. Being active is also part of the solution.
Not anymore. Health is catching on like there's no tomorrow. Kids go to the gym and go vegan/vegetarian all the time. I see it a lot, even from kids who have parents who ate like crap. Why is this? Education! That's the key. Teach them how to be healthy. Don't overstep your authority and try to dictate to me what I can or cannot eat or feed my children.
Depends on the peanut butter and the jelly. Alot have too much sugar in them and transfat. Not good for you and yes, deadly. But they can't stop you from putting the bad stuff in white bread sandwiches. But they can ban the bad stuff.
Those things are only a danger if I ALSO choose not to exercise or eat right in other ways. It's not for the government or anyone else to dictate to me what I eat.
Not really...
www.cdc.gov/salmonella/outbreaks.html
Those requirements are so low, that honestly a 40 year pre Fat American old citizen could make them.
Know why?
Because most schools only require -one- PE course. Which is only good for half of a school year. Kids don't go outside anymore. Because their parents never made them. So that habit of excercise never sunk in.
We've had fast food and etc available for a Long Time now in America. However Fat Lazy Slobbery didn't really take off until the mid 90s. Because frankly we've as a culture become, gluttonous sloths. When people decided it was better to just eat fast food at every meal rather than take the whole of 30 minutes to make a somewhat balanced and far healthier meal at home. Coincidentally the mid 90s- current is just about at the height of the "you're special, and perfect just the way you are!" brainwashing that got shoved into children's programming.
God help me if I ever make a kids show. Because one of my messages would be "No you aren't fine as you are. Your belly is larger than your shoulders are wide, you whine too much, ask for too much, and your a lazy inconsiderate prig. Stop eating that cake and get outside"
Do you grow your own food? Mske your oen peanut butter? Keep milk cows? You are dependent on the companies that do that for you. As such, you don't have as much control as you think.
I could if I chose to. However, that's not the issue. The issue is not whether I willingly choose to give control of certain things to companies. It's whether those things can be taken from me forceably by the Government.
Not everyone processes nutrients the same way, and not everyone knoows if they have a problem processing those nutrients. Glutten is one of those things that you need to get tested for. I had a friend who was apperantly allergic to glutten. He had no idea. For 35 years he has been eating regular food that contained glutten and last year he finally found out he had it. it isn't as bad as some other people, he does not process glutten like you or I.
Now you're just moving the goal posts. We're not talking about people with rare medical issues that make health a problem. We're talking about your average person who can with average excercise and a very small amount of health knowledge, be just as healthy as he wants to be.
That is debatable as well.
It's about as debatable as the earth being flat is debatable. If you want to take an objectively wrong side of a situation and debate it, you certainly can. Most drugs have a far more profoundly bad impact on both your body and/or your mental state than alchohol does.
Depends on the peanut butter and the jelly. Alot have too much sugar in them and transfat. Not good for you and yes, deadly. But they can't stop you from putting the bad stuff in white bread sandwiches. But they can ban the bad stuff.
Those things are only a danger if I ALSO choose not to exercise or eat right in other ways. It's not for the government or anyone else to dictate to me what I eat.
Not really...
www.cdc.gov/salmonella/outbreaks.html
Which disproves NOTHING that I said in the post you quoted. Salmonilla is NOT part of a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich. It is an outside source that is causing the problem. And believe you me, I don't need the goverment to tell me not to eat salmonilla. I can make that decision on my own ;)
I could if I chose to. However, that's not the issue. The issue is not whether I willingly choose to give control of certain things to companies. It's whether those things can be taken from me forceably by the Government.
There is the problem. You think it is the government telling you what you can and can't eat or feed your children. Look, what this school is doing is obviously stupid. Telling you what to do is one thing, but regulating the food industry is another. I'm sure you might be able to live off the land if you wanted to, but that is not a choice for everyone. I'd like to see the verage New Yorker trying to milk a cow. Where would they keep it? The government shouldn't tell you that you can't feed your kid a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, but it should be allowed to regulate the companies that make that peanut butter and jelly and bread.
It's a missconception that government regulations are meant to control you. Government regulation, when design correctly and applied correctly, are helpful in keeping you safe. I get tired of people rantijgn about the government taking away their freedom to choose and then cry foul when something happens to them. The government is trying to tke your freedom of choice, it is regulating industries so that you can live and get that opportunity to choose.
I'm sure that you as a parent would want to give your kids the best food. Would you rather give your kids some peanut butter that has all natural engridients or a laundry list of chemical additives that you need a chemistry degree to even bigin to understand?
Now you're just moving the goal posts. We're not talking about people with rare medical issues that make health a problem. We're talking about your average person who can with average excercise and a very small amount of health knowledge, be just as healthy as he wants to be.
Not at all. You said that you don't need to be a doctor to know how everyone will take different foods (paraphrased). I justgave an example of someone who does not fall into that catagory... even though he thought he did for the longest time. Not everyone can eat the same stuff. There are people living with various disorders and they don't even know it. I've met people who have been diabetics for years and not know it.
It's about as debatable as the earth being flat is debatable. If you want to take an objectively wrong side of a situation and debate it, you certainly can. Most drugs have a far more profoundly bad impact on both your body and/or your mental state than alchohol does.
Not really. Alcohol is pretty bad for you. It damages several organs while some of the "harder drugs" cause less damage or affect less organs. It all depends. Heck, even if you wanted to ban all of the drugs that are worse for you than alcohol, there are still plenty of drugs that are labeled as illegal and do a lot less damage than alcohol does. Why can't we just regulate those?
Which disproves NOTHING that I said in the post you quoted. Salmonilla is NOT part of a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich. It is an outside source that is causing the problem. And believe you me, I don't need the goverment to tell me not to eat salmonilla. I can make that decision on my own ;)
My mistake. I thought you ate other things besides peanut butter and jelly. While you might be able to make that choice that you don't want to eat salmonella, you have to know that the food you are eating is either contaminated with salmonella or samonella free. It isn't as if you can just see a giant bacteria on food.
If you still want to just focus on the peanuts... well... here you go...
health.usnews.com/health-news/family-hea...
There is the problem. You think it is the government telling you what you can and can't eat or feed your children. Look, what this school is doing is obviously stupid.
Good to hear you say that
Telling you what to do is one thing, but regulating the food industry is another.
It really depends on the type of regulation. Increased taxes are a deterring punishment that is intended to force me financially to comply with their desires. I am against that in all cases where the item being "deterred" is not also a hazard to others. i.e. cigarretes and alchohol.
I'm sure you might be able to live off the land if you wanted to, but that is not a choice for everyone.
Why not?
I'd like to see the verage New Yorker trying to milk a cow.
That New Yorker has the choice to move to where he can do it. If he doesn't make that choice for whatever reason, he still has the choice available.
The government shouldn't tell you that you can't feed your kid a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, but it should be allowed to regulate the companies that make that peanut butter and jelly and bread.
So long as it doesn't impact my ability to buy it and feed it to my kid, the government can regulate them to its hearts content. The minute those regulations start to impact me financially, the government has overstepped its bounds and needs to be forced to back off.
It's a missconception that government regulations are meant to control you. Government regulation, when design correctly and applied correctly, are helpful in keeping you safe.
I don't need the government to keep me safe from peanut butter and jelly. That's not its job. It needs to keep me safe ONLY from things I cannot control myself. All else is outside of what we should allow it to do.
I get tired of people rantijgn about the government taking away their freedom to choose and then cry foul when something happens to them.
I agree. Those losers need to be kicked to the curb.
I'm sure that you as a parent would want to give your kids the best food. Would you rather give your kids some peanut butter that has all natural engridients or a laundry list of chemical additives that you need a chemistry degree to even bigin to understand?
Again. They need to regulate what I cannot control myself. If those chemicals are a danger to me and my child, then it needs to step in and squish some corporate fingers. If it decides to try and impact my ability to buy PB&J sandwhiches through taxes and regulations, I and other voters need to squish some government fingers.
Which disproves NOTHING that I said in the post you quoted. Salmonilla is NOT part of a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich. It is an outside source that is causing the problem. And believe you me, I don't need the goverment to tell me not to eat salmonilla. I can make that decision on my own ;)
My mistake. I thought you ate other things besides peanut butter and jelly. While you might be able to make that choice that you don't want to eat salmonella, you have to know that the food you are eating is either contaminated with salmonella or samonella free. It isn't as if you can just see a giant bacteria on food.
If you still want to just focus on the peanuts... well... here you go...
health.usnews.com/health-news/family-hea...
You're missing the point. I am talking about the food itself. If salmonella is in it, that means something has gone wrong. At that point, the issue is NOT the food. It's the addition of salmonella. Since I am discussing FOOD regulations, and not bacteria and poison regulations, bring up salmonella doesn't accomplish anything.
Of course dangerous bacteria and poisons should be regulated. That's a no brainer.
Know what else happened in the 80s and 90s? The sensationalizing and mass circulation of stories of anything that might harm a child. People learned that "strangers" are people you must be afraid of. If your kids aren't supervised one of "them" might get them. Combine this with the growing trend of both parents working to make ends meet and you have parents that just didn't have the energy or patience for their own children. Better to let the TV babysit them, they're safer in the house anyway.
Have you seen the South Park episode about that? It's very funny.
It really depends on the type of regulation. Increased taxes are a deterring punishment that is intended to force me financially to comply with their desires. I am against that in all cases where the item being "deterred" is not also a hazard to others. i.e. cigarretes and alchohol.
Most of the time it is the companies that raise the price. In fact, there has been a big movement of companies charging more and reducing the size of the item. It is odd that you would put a financial stipulation on your safety. The government can regulate it as much as it wants to keep you safe as long as you don’t have to pay a penny more.
Why not?
That New Yorker has the choice to move to where he can do it. If he doesn't make that choice for whatever reason, he still has the choice available.
That isn’t remotely realistic. In order for everyone in New York to be able to make their own food, you would need to restructure the infrastructure in New York (not to mention the rest of the U.S.). The amount of land required for all the people in the state to grow food and have animals would be far too great for a single state to contain.
Then there is the problem of businesses. With all the land needed to have people provide for themselves, where would companies build? Where would the office buildings go?
And you know there would be someone crying about people losing their jobs because entire industries dedicated to food production have gone out of business.
So long as it doesn't impact my ability to buy it and feed it to my kid, the government can regulate them to its hearts content. The minute those regulations start to impact me financially, the government has overstepped its bounds and needs to be forced to back off.
Seriously, how much is your kid’s health worth to you?
I don't need the government to keep me safe from peanut butter and jelly. That's not its job. It needs to keep me safe ONLY from things I cannot control myself. All else is outside of what we should allow it to do.
There are plenty of additives added to food that you may not know about. For example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brominated_vegetab...
I agree. Those losers need to be kicked to the curb.
Agreed.
Again. They need to regulate what I cannot control myself. If those chemicals are a danger to me and my child, then it needs to step in and squish some corporate fingers. If it decides to try and impact my ability to buy PB&J sandwhiches through taxes and regulations, I and other voters need to squish some government fingers.
That’s the catch. Unless you are making it yourself, you can’t control any of it. You can’t control how much sugar is added, or how much coloring is added to it. Both ingredients fall into that “you can’t control” category.
You keep saying this, but it is not a question of the government telling you what you can eat, but making sure compagnies produce quality food, which we already do.
And you're under the horrid impression that there's something wrong with soda and it's ingredients. Soda is perfectly safe.
You can die from drinking too much water, goldo. does that mean the govt should stop selling the populace safe drinking water?
The only thing wrong, is the fact that people are chugging a 2 litre bottle at lunch. Which is an entirely personal choice. A very poor, personal choice, but a choice none the less.
I drink 1-2 glasses of soda every day. That's it. Maybe 1 glass of orange juice or milk. (depending on which I'm in the mood for) and a couple of glasses of water. I eat, mostly chicken at dinner as my meat. (mostly because I like how it tastes compared to beef. And there's so many delicious ways to prepare it) I eat on average, one burger a week, with some baked fries.
I have the sense to work out at least 45 minutes a day at least 4 times a week.
You don't see me sprouting an extra 30lbs from that 1 to 2 glasses of soda. Never will. Now if I replaced everything I drank with soda? I might gain a few pounds.
People are just lazy, that is the whole problem in a nutshell. It's not the food that has been available in ready access since the 30s.
Cyanide isn't safe.
There's nothing unsafe about carbonated water, sugar, caffiene, and flavorings that they put in soda in the mixtures they use them in.
Like I said you can die from drinking too much water. Maybe we should ban that too.
Depends on the peanut butter and the jelly. Alot have too much sugar in them and transfat. Not good for you and yes, deadly. But they can't stop you from putting the bad stuff in white bread sandwiches. But they can ban the bad stuff.
Those things are only a danger if I ALSO choose not to exercise or eat right in other ways. It's not for the government or anyone else to dictate to me what I eat.
You keep saying this, but it is not a question of the government telling you what you can eat, but making sure compagnies produce quality food, which we already do.
And you keep saying this, despite the fact that I'm not talking about regulating safety issues. I'm talking about the government regulating what I can and cannot eat as many cities and States are trying to do. THAT is the issue, not botulism and whatnot being regulated. People are not getting up in arms because the government requires testing for bacteria. They are getting up in arms because more and more places are trying to pull stupid crap like telling parents that they cannot give their kids lunch for school.
Know what else happened in the 80s and 90s? The sensationalizing and mass circulation of stories of anything that might harm a child. People learned that "strangers" are people you must be afraid of. If your kids aren't supervised one of "them" might get them. Combine this with the growing trend of both parents working to make ends meet and you have parents that just didn't have the energy or patience for their own children. Better to let the TV babysit them, they're safer in the house anyway.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. When I was a kid, through my high school years, you couldn't find a baseball diamond that was empty. It was always littered with children. The same holds true for parks and neighborhoods in general. Now, the (middle to upper-middle class) suburb I grew up in is like a ghost town. It's quite depressing to see.
No, you're just far more likely to die of one if you are a fatass.
Okay, Micha. We get it. You have a genuine disdain for overweight people. But there's no reason to add the colorful commentary each and every post.
It is odd that you would put a financial stipulation on your safety. The government can regulate it as much as it wants to keep you safe as long as you don’t have to pay a penny more.
Not really. Most of the regulation is in fact OVER regulation. If there is an outbreak of salmonella that kills 5 people ever year.......so what. I don't need to pay extra in an attempt to avoid a 1 in 70,000,000 chance of death. I'm okay with those odds. Just like I'm okay with getting rid of most of the extra security crap at airports. Even at pre 9/11 security levels, my chance of death from terrorist activity was so remote as to not be worthy of worry.
I feel really sorry for people who fear death from such remote odds. They must lead some miserable lives to exist in such a constant state of fear.
That isn’t remotely realistic. In order for everyone in New York to be able to make their own food, you would need to restructure the infrastructure in New York (not to mention the rest of the U.S.). The amount of land required for all the people in the state to grow food and have animals would be far too great for a single state to contain.
Everyone in New York has the choice, but very, very few will actually take that choice so we don't have to worry about it. For whatever reasons, pretty much everyone chooses to let companies have that control. They don't have to make that choice, but they do.
Seriously, how much is your kid’s health worth to you?
I'm not going to teach her to fear long odds.
No, you're just far more likely to die of one if you are a fatass.
Okay, Micha. We get it. You have a genuine disdain for overweight people. But there's no reason to add the colorful commentary each and every post.
Well goldo said fatass first that time ;)
No, you're just far more likely to die of one if you are a fatass.
Okay, Micha. We get it. You have a genuine disdain for overweight people. But there's no reason to add the colorful commentary each and every post.
Well goldo said fatass first that time ;)
Looking back, I should have PM'd that. I am sorry. I didn't mean to call you out. I just know that D&D attracts people of all shapes and sizes.
I'm pretty hard to offend really.
Overspending in the states are the reason why your taxes are so high.
Not really. Most of the regulation is in fact OVER regulation. If there is an outbreak of salmonella that kills 5 people ever year.......so what.
That is what you say, until someone close to you ends up dying of it. Your son/daughter died from a bad salmonella outbreak... meh… so what? One kid’s life is meaningless... to others.
I don't need to pay extra in an attempt to avoid a 1 in 70,000,000 chance of death. I'm okay with those odds.
You realize that the reason the odds or so low is because of regulations that are in place right? I know I’ve mentioned this before, but you really should read The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. If you saw what “food safety” and “food quality” were before the FDA and some of the many regulations we have now, you would be a lot more thankful for regulations. There are countries around the world that still have horrible food safety conditions. Yeah, sometimes we over regulate and the price of products go up a tiny bit, but at least the odds of you getting sick and dying are very low.
Just like I'm okay with getting rid of most of the extra security crap at airports. Even at pre 9/11 security levels, my chance of death from terrorist activity was so remote as to not be worthy of worry.
Could you give some specific examples of some of this regulation you would like to see done away with? There are certain regulations that I think are bad, and some that are good. I’m not going to say that any additional regulation is good. I think that properly designed regulations that are correctly implemented are good. You can implement some garbage regulations and they won’t do anything.
I feel really sorry for people who fear death from such remote odds. They must lead some miserable lives to exist in such a constant state of fear.
They must. There are people that fear everything. I’m not one of those. I just want to make sure that some jerk running company X doesn’t decide that his profits are more important than my health.
Soda has been mentioned in this thread before. Is soda healthy? No. Is it going to kill you? That depends on how much you drink and how often. I don’t drink soda… at least not by choice. If I’m somewhere and there is nothing else to drink, I’ll have a soda. Heck, every once in a while I’ll have an alcoholic drink that gets mixed with coke. Is drinking a soda or a drink mixed with soda, going to kill me? I highly doubt it. But I would rather pay an extra 25 cents for a soda because of some regulation that made the cost of making said soda more expensive than allowing the jerk running company X to make it cheaper by putting more chemicals in it.
Everyone in New York has the choice, but very, very few will actually take that choice so we don't have to worry about it. For whatever reasons, pretty much everyone chooses to let companies have that control. They don't have to make that choice, but they do.
How much land would you require to become completely independent of any food producing company? According to the Wiki page, New York City’s population is 8,175,133. New York State’s population is 18,976,811. Where would you get the land? You would have to take it from people that own the land and redistribute it. I don't think everyone is in on that being a good and feasable idea.
How much time would it take to grow your own food? It isn’t realistic to think that every person in New York can grow their own food.
It is not a realistic idea.
Seriously, how much is your kid’s health worth to you?
I'm not going to teach her to fear long odds.
I’m glad you are going to teach her that. I hope you also teach her that thanks to the regulations we have now, she has such low odds of getting sick from food. However, that does not answer the question. How much do you value your kid’s health?
I agree that what Chicago is doing is not the solution, but the question of food regulation is the same as botulism, as you say.
They are not the same. There is merely overlap. The two issues of food regulation and safety regulation overlap a bit when it comes to both safety and fod.
If we make sure food doesn't have botulism in it, we should also make sure it doesn't have transfat, too much refine sugar, sodium, corn syrup...
This does not compute. Of everything on that list, only botulism is a safety issue in and of itself. The rest are not unless combined with other things that are the choices of the people eating them. The government is well on the way to being a totalitarian state once they start dictating who can eat what food to the degree that you suggest.
Stop seeing this is government saying you cannot give this or that to your kid.
No. This is the government telling me what I can or cannot eat AND what I can or cannot give my kid. It's worse.
This is the government trying to prevent you from dying from stupidy and corporate greed.
No. It isn't corporate greed. Putting in ingrediants that people like and have the choice to avoid by buying readily available healthy foods is not them being greedy. It's them doing average business. As for the government portion of that comment. They have no right to protect me or anyone else from their own short sightedness. If someone wants to be stupid and do something dangerous, that's their business and no one elses UNLESS it harms others.
What's next? Are you going to advocate that the government forbid people from bungee jumping, rock climbing, mountain climbingm skiing, etc.? All of those activities are dangerous.
The government needs to keep their noses out of my rights.
Like when it says to you to cook that hamburger meat til no red is left in it or that it makes sure that the producer respect hygene norms.
I cook mine medium rare and get it that way at every restaraunt that will make it that way for me. Why? Because I WILL NOT FEAR LONG ODDS. People who fear long odds are morons. I've had my hamburger that way for 38+ years and I will have it that way for a lot longer. Guess how many times that eating my burgers that way has made me very sick? I'll give you a clue. You don't need any hands to do it.
This is just saying that peanut butter shouldn't have transfat or mercury in it. You wouldn't want mercury in your peanut butter even if it won't kill you right away. Why would you want transfat?
One is a poison and the other is irrelevant unless I choose for it to be relevant.
Overspending in the states are the reason why your taxes are so high.
Fat people may not be the reason why taxes are o high, but it is one of the things contributing to other things being high. also, it isn't just over spending, it is spending on the wrong things. What was the fighter plane that was supposed to have a second engine built for around $450 million? the pentagon said it wasn't needed, yet Boehner was more than willing to spend the money on it. Why? because the money went to a company in his state. Overspending is one thing. Stupidly spending is another.
That is what you say, until someone close to you ends up dying of it. Your son/daughter died from a bad salmonella outbreak... meh… so what? One kid’s life is meaningless... to others.
I'm 41 years old and no one that I know of has ever had this happen. Want know what I will change if it does happen? Absolutely nothing. It will suck ass for that person, but I will not fear long odds or teach anyone else in my family to fear it.
You realize that the reason the odds or so low is because of regulations that are in place right?
Regulations, sure. But those regulations have been good enough for the last 30 years. We don't need to keep increasing them every time someone gets struck down by long odds. That's just stupid.
I know I’ve mentioned this before, but you really should read The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. If you saw what “food safety” and “food quality” were before the FDA and some of the many regulations we have now, you would be a lot more thankful for regulations.
I'm not now, nor have I ever said that all regulations were bad.
Could you give some specific examples of some of this regulation you would like to see done away with? There are certain regulations that I think are bad, and some that are good. I’m not going to say that any additional regulation is good. I think that properly designed regulations that are correctly implemented are good. You can implement some garbage regulations and they won’t do anything.
All of the excess scans, full body searches, etc. are a waste of time and serve only to irritate millions of people in the vain effort to catch someone stupid. Not allowing box cutters on the planes was not a bad improvement.
They must. There are people that fear everything. I’m not one of those. I just want to make sure that some jerk running company X doesn’t decide that his profits are more important than my health.
You currently have the option to buy and eat food that is entirely healthy, avoiding transfats and excess sugar AND excercising. The government doesn't need to do that for you and jerks from company X cannot stop you.
Soda has been mentioned in this thread before. Is soda healthy? No. Is it going to kill you? That depends on how much you drink and how often. I don’t drink soda… at least not by choice. If I’m somewhere and there is nothing else to drink, I’ll have a soda. Heck, every once in a while I’ll have an alcoholic drink that gets mixed with coke. Is drinking a soda or a drink mixed with soda, going to kill me? I highly doubt it.
Great! And you did all of that WITHOUT government intervention. Everyone else can, too.
But I would rather pay an extra 25 cents for a soda because of some regulation that made the cost of making said soda more expensive than allowing the jerk running company X to make it cheaper by putting more chemicals in it.
If the chemicals are poison or cancer causing, I agree with you.
How much land would you require to become completely independent of any food producing company? According to the Wiki page, New York City’s population is 8,175,133. New York State’s population is 18,976,811. Where would you get the land? You would have to take it from people that own the land and redistribute it. I don't think everyone is in on that being a good and feasable idea.
::shrug:: It's completely irrelevant to this discussion, so I'm not even going to try and figure it out. As I said before, most people don't make that choice and trying to figure out something that millions of people are never going to choose is a complete waste of time and effort.
How much time would it take to grow your own food? It isn’t realistic to think that every person in New York can grow their own food.
Then it's a good thing nobody every suggested that.
I'm glad you are going to teach her that. I hope you also teach her that thanks to the regulations we have now, she has such low odds of getting sick from food. However, that does not answer the question. How much do you value your kid’s health?
I value it quite a bit. She eats healthier than I do, though. She's got a good head on her shoulders.
*** snip***
i get the distinct feeling that you are getting to the point of being aggrevated and this discussion will only become an argument. As such, I'm pulling out of it. Enjoy.
This is just saying that peanut butter shouldn't have transfat or mercury in it. You wouldn't want mercury in your peanut butter even if it won't kill you right away. Why would you want transfat?
One is a poison and the other is irrelevant unless I choose for it to be relevant.
Except transfat contribute to heart attacks and other heart problems. If your will power is strong enough to ignore transfat, then you should also be able to ignore mercury, Mr. Charlie Sheen.
What are you blathering about now? Mercury being the same as transfat. Riiiiiight.
*** snip***
i get the distinct feeling that you are getting to the point of being aggrevated and this discussion will only become an argument. As such, I'm pulling out of it. Enjoy.
A little bit, but not to the point of fighting and insulting or anything. If you want to continue the discussion, I'm game. Otherwise, it was fun
Wrong again my misinformed friend. Taxes from cigarettes do not come close to what is spent on healthcare for smokers. At least here. Bad food cause even more health problems, thus cost alot to society.
Maybe in your country. Health care is privately held here. Thus, more taxable profit The tail wags the dog. Enter (regulated) government *cough* health care. So that may change. But up until September, you are not correct, and still may not be afterwards.
Wrong again my misinformed friend. Taxes from cigarettes do not come close to what is spent on healthcare for smokers. At least here. Bad food cause even more health problems, thus cost alot to society.
Maybe in your country. Health care is privately held here. Thus, more taxable profit The tail wags the dog. Enter (regulated) government *cough* health care. So that may change. But up until September, you are not correct.
I'm not certain that you are correct. A great many of poor people smoke and they can't afford health care, yet they will get medical care at the cost of the tax payers if they go to a hospital. I couldn't tell you whether that equals more or less than the taxes gained from cigarettes, but I doubt that it's as one sided as you are saying.
Wrong again my misinformed friend. Taxes from cigarettes do not come close to what is spent on healthcare for smokers. At least here. Bad food cause even more health problems, thus cost alot to society.
Maybe in your country. Health care is privately held here. Thus, more taxable profit The tail wags the dog. Enter (regulated) government *cough* health care. So that may change. But up until September, you are not correct.
I'm not certain that you are correct. A great many of poor people smoke and they can't afford health care, yet they will get medical care at the cost of the tax payers if they go to a hospital. I couldn't tell you whether that equals more or less than the taxes gained from cigarettes, but I doubt that it's as one sided as you are saying.
blog.turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/how-mu...
www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/weekinreview/...
Wrong again my misinformed friend. Taxes from cigarettes do not come close to what is spent on healthcare for smokers. At least here. Bad food cause even more health problems, thus cost alot to society.
Maybe in your country. Health care is privately held here. Thus, more taxable profit The tail wags the dog. Enter (regulated) government *cough* health care. So that may change. But up until September, you are not correct.
I'm not certain that you are correct. A great many of poor people smoke and they can't afford health care, yet they will get medical care at the cost of the tax payers if they go to a hospital. I couldn't tell you whether that equals more or less than the taxes gained from cigarettes, but I doubt that it's as one sided as you are saying.
www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/weekinreview/...blog.turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/how-mu...
The link isn't working for me
I fixed it. 2 links.
Hrm. The one link shows a lot of revenue coming in, but no health care and the other one I still can't get to work. I can't see the NY times link.
8.5 billion in federal revenue. 15.7 billion in state revenue. Those are mammoth numbers for one year.
www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/weekinreview/...
Something is being lost in translation
Can you give a short on what it says? I trust you ;)So yours (and U_S's) counterpoint does have strong merit, but strangely enough (and this is one of the problems with government spending), the cigarette taxes are not used towards the health care costs. They are used in other projects.
From a Vanderbuilt study, taking everything into account:
Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.
In other words, every pack of cigarettes purchased nets the country 32 cents and about 30 billion packs are sold annually.
www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-...
It basically backs up the other article, but for 2008.
I'm curious to know how much is spent on smoking related healthcare for the uninsured.
I'm not certain that you are correct. A great many of poor people smoke and they can't afford health care, yet they will get medical care at the cost of the tax payers if they go to a hospital. I couldn't tell you whether that equals more or less than the taxes gained from cigarettes, but I doubt that it's as one sided as you are saying.
blog.turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/how-mu...
www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/weekinreview/...
Interesting article, although maxperson makes a good point. People without health insurance go to emergency rooms that by law, must treat them. that ends up comming out of your tax dollars. I have a friend who used to be an emergency room tech. he told me he would get people going in there because they had a minor cold or stubbed their toe... a week ago.
Interesting article, although maxperson makes a good point. People without health insurance go to emergency rooms that by law, must treat them. that ends up comming out of your tax dollars. I have a friend who used to be an emergency room tech. he told me he would get people going in there because they had a minor cold or stubbed their toe... a week ago.
Keep reading the thread.
Interesting article, although maxperson makes a good point. People without health insurance go to emergency rooms that by law, must treat them. that ends up comming out of your tax dollars. I have a friend who used to be an emergency room tech. he told me he would get people going in there because they had a minor cold or stubbed their toe... a week ago.
Keep reading the thread.
I stepped out to get something to eat before I submitted the post.
It basically backs up the other article, but for 2008.
I'm curious to know how much is spent on smoking related healthcare for the uninsured.
Who knows, but if they go through an emergency room, it will probably be quite costly for the government.
That means that a fatass like myself may not incur as many medical expenses as a healthy person over a lifetime.
One more point that is consistently brought up in those articles is that smokers live 10 years less than nonsmokers, so there is an excess amount of money saved in social security, medicare, etc.
From a Vanderbuilt study, taking everything into account:Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.
In other words, every pack of cigarettes purchased nets the country 32 cents and about 30 billion packs are sold annually.
www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-...
Did it mention anything about people who will be place on disability due to smoking related illness and thus taking money out of social security at an earlier date than they would normal be entitled?
Is it a choice? If your parents always feed you crap and only teach you to eat and make crap, chances are you'll eat crap as an adult.
Making crap unaccessable solve that problem. In part at least. Being active is also part of the solution.
And that right there is the problem. It's not Soda's fault you're a fat slob. It's the fact that you guzzle down four glasses a day. It's the fact that you stuff your face with three double cheeseburgers.
Making anything 'unaccessable' solves nothing. here's the problem with that logic. People will make their own. Ever hear of this thing called prohibition? Here's a hint as to how well it worked.
It Didn't.
It all comes down to physical activity. I could scarf down 3 utterly decked plates of food at a buffet line in high school. I didn't gain a pound from doing so. Why? Because I was incredibly active physically.
Most of the time I didn't eat like that, because frankly my family couldn't support that kind of lifestyle. And secondly, I'd never let myself go that far. Thirdly I actually didn't eat enough for the amount of excercise and general activity level I maintained.
The whole problem is America has convinced itself that exercise is not required to stay healthy and fit. America has deluded itself into thinking being a walking tub of cholesterol is not only okay, but perfectly normal. And that stuffing your face with 3 to 4 thousand calories a day when they only burn 1,500 at most is part of normal living.
If this is true (I say "if" because this would be incredibly difficult to monitor especially over a long period of time) it would actually be worse for your body and your general health than overeating. Your body would begin to shutdown and go into starvation mode thus providing a whole array of ill effects.
I'll throw in another complicating factor. Healthy people can get chronic diseases that takes years to kill them and requires expensive care along the way. Unhealthy people tend to die quicker when they get these diseases or even before they get can get them.
That means that a fatass like myself may not incur as many medical expenses as a healthy person over a lifetime.
I would think [snip]
I would rather that someone that wanted to base policy on stuff like this would try to find evidence rather than just going by what they feel.
Oh, and on the subject of unhealthy food being compared to highly toxic poisons, your argument can be applied to any action that presents any risk. Then by extension the government would have the authority to regulate any choice that we make that carries any risk.
[edit]
For example, I know someone that was paralyzed and could have died from their lungs stopping functioning as a result of excess consumption of dihydrogen monoxide.
Here are some facts on dihydrogen monoxide
Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
- is called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain.
- contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
- may cause severe burns.
- is fatal if inhaled.
- contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
- accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
- may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
- has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
- as an industrial solvent and coolant.
- in nuclear power plants.
- in the production of Styrofoam.
- as a fire retardant.
- in many forms of cruel animal research.
- in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
- as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.
Did it mention anything about people who will be place on disability due to smoking related illness and thus taking money out of social security at an earlier date than they would normal be entitled?
Not to mention the taxes they won't be paying or the "riches" they won't be "creating" by working.
You're more than welcome to do your own research. I think I have supplied enough information that supports my point. I am sure a Vanderbilt study (as well as the Dutch study included in the article where the costs incurred from a smoker from the age 20 on is $326,000 and a nonsmoker is $417,000) were much more thorough and covered much more criteria than we can conjure up here.
Here and here are links about Kip Viscusi, who was behind that study. I gave an honest effort searching for the actual study, but the guy has so much published work, I didn't see that study in the items I initially read, and ultimately I had to give up to get ready for work. But from what I am seeing in the articles I did look through, he is more than thorough and I am sure he has covered all angles within reason (i.e. not making up extreme case scenarios as to making researching this impossible).
Do what you will with the information. I will likely follow up on it for my own interests, but I am satisfied with the credibility of the author.
he he he. dihydrogen monoxide
Water.
Did it mention anything about people who will be place on disability due to smoking related illness and thus taking money out of social security at an earlier date than they would normal be entitled?Not to mention the taxes they won't be paying or the "riches" they won't be "creating" by working.
You're more than welcome to do your own research. I think I have supplied enough information that supports my point. I am sure a Vanderbilt study (as well as the Dutch study included in the article where the costs incurred from a smoker from the age 20 on is $326,000 and a nonsmoker is $417,000) were much more thorough and covered much more criteria than we can conjure up here.
Here and here are links about Kip Viscusi, who was behind that study. I gave an honest effort searching for the actual study, but the guy has so much published work, I didn't see that study in the items I initially read, and ultimately I had to give up to get ready for work. But from what I am seeing in the articles I did look through, he is more than thorough and I am sure he has covered all angles within reason (i.e. not making up extreme case scenarios as to making researching this impossible).
Do what you will with the information. I will likely follow up on it for my own interests, but I am satisfied with the credibility of the author.
I was not trying to argue credibility rather I was looking for more insight. I will do some research but if you find the information please let me know.
I was not trying to argue credibility rather I was looking for more insight. I will do some research but if you find the information please let me know.
I didn't mean to imply that you were, simply that I've tried to follow up on it as thoroughly as I could (at the time) and that it seems to be a very credible source. In other words, I initially trust his findings and could find no reason not to.
Why not? Both are poisonous to your health and both can be handled by the body for a time in small doses without ill effect. Maybe mercury would make frizes taste great! Why not let corporations give us the tasty mercury as customers we can choose to eat?
As soon as you can show me the reputable studies done that show mercury and transfat as being equally deadly to humans, I'll debate this with you. Until then, I'm going to give this idea all the consideration that it is due.
What I'm also seeing in this discussion is a failure of some to see the difference between 'the gov't shouldn't tell me what I can and can't give my kids for lunch' and 'the gov't shouldn't regulate food'. Very different points.
________________________________
Aside from that, I'll just say this: we are not meant to live forever. We already 'live' far longer than we're supposed to. Our bodies degrade over time and we replace part after part in a vain attempt to live longer. The end result is massive, pointless expenditure and a ****ty quality of 'life' until we eventually die. Soda, trans fats, etc cause no harm to the people next to you when you consume them. None. They can cause harm to you. There is no reason to ban them whatsoever. If people choose to consume them, they also choose to live with the results of that consumption. Let them. It doesn't do you any physical harm when Johnny McEatscrappy downs a Coke next to you. Why, then, should he be prevented from drinking it?
Look, we all know UV light is dangerous, right?
I would hope so.
So why doesn't the gov't regulate it?
The sun has a pretty powerful lobbying group.
People go to tanning salons and bake themselves under these lights. Should this be banned?
Yes… God yes!
Show
www.picspile.com/_When_Suntan_Fail
I'm not sure what is up with the boards today, but I can't get a pic on here or the quotes right... and i'm tired of trying.
www.picspile.com/_When_Suntan_Fail
I'm not sure what is up with the boards today, but I can't get a pic on here or the quotes right... and i'm tired of trying.
I would hope so.
Ok, ok. We all should know UV light is bad for us. Smartass. 
The sun has a pretty powerful lobbying group.
Fine, fine. Why doesn't the gov't regulate how we interact with the sun?
Yes… God yes!
Why?
Unless you are a vampire.
Vampires are not people. *hides*
That is actually a pretty good idea.
It's actually the only on of the ones I listed I'd support. No real harm in it. Doesn't impose on anyone.
Only if we get to choose what brand of sun screen to use.
Of course! This is America, ain't it! We're free to choose what we wis ... whoops.
ZB, most of your ideas sound pretty good and level headed. This one may need a little bit of work though.
Like I said, the only one I'd support would be the sunglasses one for the reasons stated. Forcing us all to wear sunblock is way out of bounds - and I'm someone that does so anyway. I'm one of those people that only has two colors - white or steamed lobster red. So, any time spent outside during summer requires I use the stuff. The lowest I'll even consider is SPF30. Even so, I'd be pissed if it was some sort of gov't requirement.
You sir, re trying to spoil our pointless arguments. Stop it!
My bad.
I’ve had to put up with a lot from people. As uch, I’d like to be a much of a burden as I can be for as long as I can.
Meh, that ain't livin' so why be alive?
In the future, when you are turned into Soylent Green, we aren’t going to need to add any additives. They will be naturally occurring.
That's not something I'll need to fret over, is it?
Over here in Japan, everybody just gets a school lunch, and they're pretty good. We must pack a lunch for our kids on Friday, but not any other day. That's at pre-school, though. I believe that at public school it's every day.
I don't know that it's forbidden to pack kids a separate lunch, but I doubt it's a done thing. If the school is providing a decent, healthy lunch already, why bother, right? As a very busy parent, I certainly appreciate not having to worry about it. For impoverished parents, this might be the only decent meal the kid gets in a day.
It's actually the only on of the ones I listed I'd support. No real harm in it. Doesn't impose on anyone.
Bull. I can't stand sun glasses and I have never been willing to wear them. To be forced to spend my money on them and then wear them would be a big imposition on me, as well as removing from me the freedom to wear the clothing that I choose. This is akin to being forced to buy health care or have the government dictate to me how many pairs of socks I must own.
If something like that passed, I would refuse to comply. If I started getting fined and/or jailed for not complying, there would be hell to pay.
Like I said, the only one I'd support would be the sunglasses one for the reasons stated. Forcing us all to wear sunblock is way out of bounds - and I'm someone that does so anyway.
There is no difference between forcing someone to wear sunglasses and forcing someone to wear sunblock. In both cases the government would be over regulating things to force you to buy and wear something for "your own good."
I'm one of those people that only has two colors - white or steamed lobster red. So, any time spent outside during summer requires I use the stuff. The lowest I'll even consider is SPF30. Even so, I'd be pissed if it was some sort of gov't requirement.
Just the same as I would be if sun glasses were a government requirement. There is no difference between the two other than the texture of what you are being forced to wear.
Damn. That was a Goldo level quote tag screwup, HS.
I'm not so sure. That has happened to me 2-3 times over the last few days and when I tried to correct it, nothing was wrong with the quote set-up. It just happened for no reason that I could detect and I went over it 3-4 times.
It's actually the only on of the ones I listed I'd support. No real harm in it. Doesn't impose on anyone.Bull. I can't stand sun glasses and I have never been willing to wear them. To be forced to spend my money on them and then wear them would be a big imposition on me, as well as removing from me the freedom to wear the clothing that I choose. This is akin to being forced to buy health care or have the government dictate to me how many pairs of socks I must own.
If something like that passed, I would refuse to comply. If I started getting fined and/or jailed for not complying, there would be hell to pay.
Wow... you missed the point didn't you? ZB' suggestion was to madate that sunglasses be made with UV protection. If you don't wear sunglasses, it does not affect you in anyway.
Damn. That was a Goldo level quote tag screwup, HS.
I'm not so sure. That has happened to me 2-3 times over the last few days and when I tried to correct it, nothing was wrong with the quote set-up. It just happened for no reason that I could detect and I went over it 3-4 times.
Yeah, I got tired of correcting it. there was nothing wrong. It may be some problem with the boards. I couldn't even link up a pic.
It's actually the only on of the ones I listed I'd support. No real harm in it. Doesn't impose on anyone.Bull. I can't stand sun glasses and I have never been willing to wear them. To be forced to spend my money on them and then wear them would be a big imposition on me, as well as removing from me the freedom to wear the clothing that I choose. This is akin to being forced to buy health care or have the government dictate to me how many pairs of socks I must own.
If something like that passed, I would refuse to comply. If I started getting fined and/or jailed for not complying, there would be hell to pay.
Wow... you missed the point didn't you? ZB' suggestion was to madate that sunglasses be made with UV protection. If you don't wear sunglasses, it does not affect you in anyway.
No. I didn't miss the point. I misread the suggestion. There's a difference. If that was what was said, then I only have an issue with it if it raises the price of sun glasses. People should have the option to buy sun glasses with no UV protection if it would be cheaper and they want to.
Damn. That was a Goldo level quote tag screwup, HS.
I'm not so sure. That has happened to me 2-3 times over the last few days and when I tried to correct it, nothing was wrong with the quote set-up. It just happened for no reason that I could detect and I went over it 3-4 times.
Yeah, I got tired of correcting it. there was nothing wrong. It may be some problem with the boards. I couldn't even link up a pic.
I hate the (poorly implemented) board formatting here. It forms bad habits and causes me to butcher the hell out of the other forums I participate in.
Fat people also whine alot ... Ewww.
Apparently, so do skinny people.
But the government does have asay in what kids are feed. A 6 years old that weights 200 pounds will probably get the visite of child services. Is it negligence from the parents? That is another question, but that child is in danger. But granted, this is an extrem example and isn't the norm (I hope).
But again. This is not a food issue. It's a parent negligence issue. The government doesn't have the right to regulate that actual food, but only this single instance of neglect.
But the government does have asay in what kids are feed. A 6 years old that weights 200 pounds will probably get the visite of child services. Is it negligence from the parents? That is another question, but that child is in danger. But granted, this is an extrem example and isn't the norm (I hope).
But again. This is not a food issue. It's a parent negligence issue. The government doesn't have the right to regulate that actual food, but only this single instance of neglect.
Agreed. They are trying to prevent negligence by assuming (legislating) that all parents are negligent.
Bull. I can't stand sun glasses and I have never been willing to wear them. To be forced to spend my money on them and then wear them would be a big imposition on me, as well as removing from me the freedom to wear the clothing that I choose. This is akin to being forced to buy health care or have the government dictate to me how many pairs of socks I must own.
If something like that passed, I would refuse to comply. If I started getting fined and/or jailed for not complying, there would be hell to pay.
Whoa, whoa whoa. I never said sunglasses should be compulsory. What I asked was whether or not sunglass manufacturers should be compelled to make all lenses capable of blocking UV. Nowhere did I say the populace should be required to wear them.
I agree. I said in my first post here that the Chicago initiative wasn't teh solution.
But the government does have asay in what kids are feed. A 6 years old that weights 200 pounds will probably get the visite of child services. Is it negligence from the parents? That is another question, but that child is in danger. But granted, this is an extrem example and isn't the norm (I hope).
And there the issue is negligence, not food. Target the appropriate issue or the issues will always remain.
But they do have an economic cost to the rest of us.
So do people that are injured in car accidents that they cause. Maybe we oughtta ban cars in order to prevent us having to pay for their injuries.
Fine, fine. Why doesn't the gov't regulate how we interact with the sun?
Again, the lobying group the sun has is just too influential. Look at how they mess us up the time you wake up twice a year. I hate those guys.
Why?
I couldn't link a pic last time... let's hope this works.
EDIT: Nope, it didn't work. here is a link. cheezburger.com/View/2898083328
Vampires are not people. *hides*
An army of tween girls would dissagree with you.
It's actually the only one of the ones I listed I'd support. No real harm in it. Doesn't impose on anyone.
Unfortunately not everyone will see it that way.
Of course! This is America, ain't it! We're free to choose what we wis ... whoops.
Soon we will be posting up an article about schools not alllowing you to give your kids sun screen. They will only be allowed to use the one provided by the evil government.
Like I said, the only one I'd support would be the sunglasses one for the reasons stated. Forcing us all to wear sunblock is way out of bounds - and I'm someone that does so anyway. I'm one of those people that only has two colors - white or steamed lobster red. So, any time spent outside during summer requires I use the stuff. The lowest I'll even consider is SPF30. Even so, I'd be pissed if it was some sort of gov't requirement.
I flash burn at the beach. Most people think that because i was born in Colombia and my mom is italian that would tan nicely. Unfortunately i don't. I walk out and a few minutes later I'm lobster red. The slight coloring I have now took me years of P.E. classes and walking everywhere to develop.
My bad.
You know the routine. Go sit in the corner and wait for Goldo.
Meh, that ain't livin' so why be alive?
Because I want to see what Pr0n looks like in the future.
That's not something I'll need to fret over, is it?
You won't, but that little 8 year old kid that will be eating will have to worry about it. Think about the kids you selfish jerk!
So do people that are injured in car accidents that they cause. Maybe we oughtta ban cars in order to prevent us having to pay for their injuries.
I agree. We need massive public transport. Not only will it be safer but it would pollute less.
I have to admit... ZB walked right into that one.
So do people that are injured in car accidents that they cause. Maybe we oughtta ban cars in order to prevent us having to pay for their injuries.
I agree. We need massive public transport. Not only will it be safer but it would pollute less.
Mass transit is awesome. It's just not a viable solution for all cities.
But the government does have asay in what kids are feed. A 6 years old that weights 200 pounds will probably get the visite of child services. Is it negligence from the parents? That is another question, but that child is in danger. But granted, this is an extrem example and isn't the norm (I hope).
But again. This is not a food issue. It's a parent negligence issue. The government doesn't have the right to regulate that actual food, but only this single instance of neglect.
True, but the government does regulate what we produce, food included. Maybe we would have less fat kids if healthier food was available.
Healthier food IS available, and readily available at that. So this is false.
So do people that are injured in car accidents that they cause. Maybe we oughtta ban cars in order to prevent us having to pay for their injuries.
I agree. We need massive public transport. Not only will it be safer but it would pollute less.
I have to admit... ZB walked right into that one.
Public transportation is also dangerous, so that would have to be banned as well. Oh, and you can fall and hurt yourself while walking, so you can't move. But wait! Sitting still is bad for you since you can't exercise so you have to move! But moving is dangerous! Overload! Overload! Overload! Mayday!
So do people that are injured in car accidents that they cause. Maybe we oughtta ban cars in order to prevent us having to pay for their injuries.
I agree. We need massive public transport. Not only will it be safer but it would pollute less.
Mass transit is awesome. It's just not a viable solution for all cities.
It's also horribly implemented in a lot of places. here in Miami we could have a great public transit system. Instead we have garbage. Buses take forever. A lot of the routes are made depending on the politics (both sides do it). Some of them are put through areas where there is minimal bus use. A bunch of money is wasted and then the entire system has to suffer because the funding for public transportation has been thrown away.
So do people that are injured in car accidents that they cause. Maybe we oughtta ban cars in order to prevent us having to pay for their injuries.
I agree. We need massive public transport. Not only will it be safer but it would pollute less.
Mass transit is awesome. It's just not a viable solution for all cities.
It's also horribly implemented in a lot of places. here in Miami we could have a great public transit system. Instead we have garbage. Buses take forever. A lot of the routes are made depending on the politics (both sides do it). Some of them are put through areas where there is minimal bus use. A bunch of money is wasted and then the entire system has to suffer because the funding for public transportation has been thrown away.
That too...
As for the Metro Detroit area, primarily in part due to the mass exodus from Detroit proper, it just wouldn't work here. We have buses, sure, but nothing on the scale that would even categorize it as mass transit. The entire area outside of Detroit is one huge sprawling suburb. Owning a car is a necessity in Metro Detroit if you are going to get around anywhere.
So do people that are injured in car accidents that they cause. Maybe we oughtta ban cars in order to prevent us having to pay for their injuries.
I agree. We need massive public transport. Not only will it be safer but it would pollute less.
Mass transit is awesome. It's just not a viable solution for all cities.
It's also horribly implemented in a lot of places. here in Miami we could have a great public transit system. Instead we have garbage. Buses take forever. A lot of the routes are made depending on the politics (both sides do it). Some of them are put through areas where there is minimal bus use. A bunch of money is wasted and then the entire system has to suffer because the funding for public transportation has been thrown away.
Why not bribe bus drivers?
Bus drivers here get paid quite well. They aren't the problem. they don't get to choose what routes they drive or where those routes go. It's a political thing. Politicians want to make it seem as if they are providing for their constituents, but it is only momentarily. Once they have gotten enough support to run for a higher office, they start cutting back funding. Both sides do it. They don't care how the money is spent, so long as it is spent to make them look good.
And it's usually not even faster then taking a car either.
You could always privatise public transport. We've gotten to the point where a train ticket can be more expensive then taking the car, and it still ends you up only somewhere in the general vicinity of where you want to go, often a half hour walk from your destination.
And it's usually not even faster then taking a car either.
You would think that would work, but this being Florida, and South Florida in particular, private companies are even worse. Most of them run the same exact routes that the public transit system does, and they have horrible driving records.
You could always privatise public transport. We've gotten to the point where a train ticket can be more expensive then taking the car, and it still ends you up only somewhere in the general vicinity of where you want to go, often a half hour walk from your destination.
And it's usually not even faster then taking a car either.
You would think that would work, but this being Florida, and South Florida in particular, private companies are even worse. Most of them run the same exact routes that the public transit system does, and they have horrible driving records.
You're in Florida... it's like 85% old people. Couldn't they just add a scooter lane to all of the roads?
You could always privatise public transport. We've gotten to the point where a train ticket can be more expensive then taking the car, and it still ends you up only somewhere in the general vicinity of where you want to go, often a half hour walk from your destination.
And it's usually not even faster then taking a car either.
You would think that would work, but this being Florida, and South Florida in particular, private companies are even worse. Most of them run the same exact routes that the public transit system does, and they have horrible driving records.
You're in Florida... it's like 85% old people. Couldn't they just add a scooter lane to all of the roads?
Do you have any idea how horrible it would be to have all those old people on motorized scooters? besides, many of them have a hard time getting scooters because insurance companies don't want to help cover the cost... even when it is necessary for the person to get around. Hell, even wheelchairs are a pain. I'm not sure how it goes in other state, but here the insurance companies that cover the elderly don't even buy the wheel chairs for their clients. They rent them out and charge the client a portion of it.
Do you have any idea how horrible it would be to have all those old people on motorized scooters? besides, many of them have a hard time getting scooters because insurance companies don't want to help cover the cost... even when it is necessary for the person to get around. Hell, even wheelchairs are a pain. I'm not sure how it goes in other state, but here the insurance companies that cover the elderly don't even buy the wheel chairs for their clients. They rent them out and charge the client a portion of it.
Well, they all get sent to Florida for a reason.
All I remember about driving in Florida is that your left turn lanes were a death trap. I experienced the worst drivers in the nation there.
Again, the lobying group the sun has is just too influential. Look at how they mess us up the time you wake up twice a year. I hate those guys.
Hey, daylight needs an advocacy group, too.
I couldn't link a pic last time... let's hope this works.
EDIT: Nope, it didn't work. here is a link. cheezburger.com/View/2898083328
Fake! But the broad ain't half bad.
An army of tween girls would dissagree with you.
Tween girls are not people.
Unfortunately not everyone will see it that way.
Of course not. The world is a pretty contrary place.
Soon we will be posting up an article about schools not alllowing you to give your kids sun screen. They will only be allowed to use the one provided by the evil government.
So long as the gov't doesn't go so far as to take control of the sunscreen industry, I think we'll be ok. Keepin' peoples' skin from turnin' pink by goin Pinko ain't no kinda answer.
I flash burn at the beach. Most people think that because i was born in Colombia and my mom is italian that would tan nicely. Unfortunately i don't. I walk out and a few minutes later I'm lobster red. The slight coloring I have now took me years of P.E. classes and walking everywhere to develop.
My Colombian pal has similar issues but can tan as well. He's pretty ghostly most of the time, though.
You know the routine. Go sit in the corner and wait for Goldo.
Sweet!
Because I want to see what Pr0n looks like in the future.
See? Who's eyes are ya gonna steal an' put into yer head? Eyes don't last that long, man.
You won't, but that little 8 year old kid that will be eating will have to worry about it. Think about the kids you selfish jerk!
You can't be selfish if you're dead. You can't be anything besides dead, really. Both its greatest advantage and weakness.
I agree. We need massive public transport. Not only will it be safer but it would pollute less.
Are you insane? A car crashes and one to maybe seven people get hurt. A bus crashes and one to maybe forty or more people get hurt. That's far, far more expensive in the long run, man. Face it, transportation of any sort is dangerous.
I refuse to face it. Buses are safe! Safer then cars! Heck planes are safer then cars! Exclamation point!
I dunno, havin' a vehicle that large on the road is a danger to anyone in a smaller vehicle. There's so many ways they aren't safer it's astounding they haven't been banned, really. And they can be used as mobile billboards that show smutty stuff like perfume and underwear ads, too! Corrupting the youth!
Hey, daylight needs an advocacy group, too.
The got to you. It’s too late.
Fake! But the broad ain't half bad.
How about this one.
Tween girls are not people.
But they eat people!!!
Of course not. The world is a pretty contrary place.
And people are pretty stupid…
So long as the gov't doesn't go so far as to take control of the sunscreen industry, I think we'll be ok. Keepin' peoples' skin from turnin' pink by goin Pinko ain't no kinda answer.
All government sun screen will have mandatory coloring in it. After three uses, you will turn a bright shade of pink. You will also be required to wear shirts that say “my name is comrade ___________”
My Colombian pal has similar issues but can tan as well. He's pretty ghostly most of the time, though.
It probably has something to do with being born in close proximity to large amounts of cocaine. We are just so powdery white.
Sweet!
That’s what you always say and then you come back crying because of something Goldo did.
See? Who's eyes are ya gonna steal an' put into yer head? Eyes don't last that long, man.
I plan to retire rich. As such, it will be my right to harvest the eyes of little children born to families of lesser means.
You can't be selfish if you're dead. You can't be anything besides dead, really. Both its greatest advantage and weakness.
You are being selfish towards people in the future. Think about it. Wouldn’t you like to continue to provide for your children after you are dead?
I agree. We need massive public transport. Not only will it be safer but it would pollute less.
Are you insane? A car crashes and one to maybe seven people get hurt. A bus crashes and one to maybe forty or more people get hurt. That's far, far more expensive in the long run, man. Face it, transportation of any sort is dangerous.
Just another form of population control and food production in the future.
The got to you. It’s too late.
Nah, I'm good. Say, why don't we adjust our clocks an hour ahead and then back again as a symbol of our understanding?
How about this one.
I'm pretty sure I've worn a few of those people.
But they eat people!!!
Who doesn't?
And people are pretty stupid…
Yep.
All government sun screen will have mandatory coloring in it. After three uses, you will turn a bright shade of pink. You will also be required to wear shirts that say “my name is comrade ___________”
As long as my shirt has a cool hammer an' sickle on it I'm down.
It probably has something to do with being born in close proximity to large amounts of cocaine. We are just so powdery white.
I think it's cuz he's like a quarter Polish or something.
That’s what you always say and then you come back crying because of something Goldo did.
But then we get to make up!
I plan to retire rich. As such, it will be my right to harvest the eyes of little children born to families of lesser means.
That may work.
You are being selfish towards people in the future. Think about it. Wouldn’t you like to continue to provide for your children after you are dead?
Whether I'd like to or not is irrelevant as soon as I kick the bucket. At that point I cease to, well, anything.
Just another form of population control and food production in the future.
Like trans fats, smoking and booze!
The availability of bad food is far superior to good food and not everone has the information to make the good choices.
You are correct, education is the key.
The problem is corporate greed. If we couldtrust corporation to give us quality products, we wouldn't need so many norms and regulations. Regulating food even more is just the natural evolution of things.
Corporations are responsible for many bad things, our food problems are not one of them. It's a CONSUMER problem and the education of CONSUMERS is the key. Not freedom removing legislation.
Nah, I'm good. Say, why don't we adjust our clocks an hour ahead and then back again as a symbol of our understanding?
That sounds like a good idea… wait a second…
Who doesn't?
Vegans, but they don’t count.
As long as my shirt has a cool hammer an' sickle on it I'm down.
Well it appears that you are in luck. I heard that will be the official` logo for the sun screen.`
I think it's cuz he's like a quarter Polish or something.
No, it’s due to being born in close proximity to cocaine.
That may work.
If the technology has advanced enough, I plan on harvesting other body parts.
Whether I'd like to or not is irrelevant as soon as I kick the bucket. At that point I cease to, well, anything.
You can always put it down on your will. If I ever die, which I don’t plan on, I will have it in my will that I want to be made into Soylent flakes and 2% soyilk so that I may continue to help those less fortunate (what child organ harvesting?)
Like trans fats, smoking and booze!
Well done sir. Now I mus kill you.. slowly by feeding you transfats and execive amounts of sugar. It make take me some time, but eventually, you're going down!!!
That sounds like a good idea… wait a second…
Actually, the expression is 'wait an hour and then change the clock so that you didn't', I think.
Vegans, but they don’t count.
Eww!
Well it appears that you are in luck. I heard that will be the official` logo for the sun screen.`
сладкий
No, it’s due to being born in close proximity to cocaine.
Fair 'nuff. I mean, so long as there's cocaine near Cali. Cuz he was born in Cali.
If the technology has advanced enough, I plan on harvesting other body parts.
Such as? I mean, as long as it's a redundant organ I'm ok with this. If you need eyes, you get one from Kid A and another from Child 2 and it's all good. If you need a specific part, though, like a nose or a skin, I'm not so sure about the ethics there.
You can always put it down on your will. If I ever die, which I don’t plan on, I will have it in my will that I want to be made into Soylent flakes and 2% soyilk so that I may continue to help those less fortunate (what child organ harvesting?)
Will you be edible, though? With all the different people makin' you up, you may be too hybridized for consumption. You certainly can't be branded '100% Homicidal Squirrel'.
Well done sir. Now I mus kill you.. slowly by feeding you transfats and execive amounts of sugar. It make take me some time, but eventually, you're going down!!!
Can't I just smoke and drink myself to death like a man?
Looks like someone skipped past most of my points and linked a study that didn't look at the factor I mentioned, thus not even proving their own argument.
Looks like someone skipped past most of my points and linked a study that didn't look at the factor I mentioned, thus not even proving their own argument.
Rather than admitting that they were incorrect or that they have a better understanding, some people will just avoid threads entirely and go try to stir up trouble elsewhere.
Sometimes it's more about the exchange of thoughts and ideas and not about being right and wrong. It's impossible to know everything. If we did, we wouldn't need forums to discuss everything.
Again, I agree. This is why cars must be taken of the road. All goods must be delivered by train.
I would tolerate helicoptercars, like the ones Plu's people are developping.
You really are kwazy, aren't you? People can't drive on roads but you'd trust 'em in the sky? And what happens if they crash over a residential area? Or over a school? Man, you're on Klirshon's side, aren't you. It seems all you wish for is humanity's demise at the hands of machines!
Indeed. Informing people is the key to anything. We might disagree on politics, but I am guessing you agree that investing in education is a sector where the government must spend.
Isn't that where this thread started: at school??
For what it's worth, I agree that education is/should be the primary focus.
Then in that case, wouldn't providing kids with healthy meal be part of the education process? Mixing theory with practice.
Chicago's proposale is problematic for 3 reasons: 1) Not everyone can afford the meal, it should be free. 2) At home kids will still eat badly. 3)Healthy eating habits begings before kids go to school.
They already provide it. But it should remain an option, not mandatory.
Transfat isn't Mercury.
transfat isn't even asbestos.
Transfat isn't chlorine gas.
Transfat can still be burned off. (if it couldn't it would either get stored, or would pass right through you. And it can be burned, otherwise those once a week trips to a fast food place would have made me a Fatass over the last ten years)
Transfat in mass quantities is bad for you.
Water in mass quantities is bad for you.
There are also degrees of undereating. If you're undereating just slightly you become more prone to fainting, with increased physical activity the longer time you have between meals.
The government's job is not to prevent Natural Selection as far as I'm concerned. If you're dumb enough to chug 2, 2 litre bottles of soda a day, and eat 2 double cheeseburgers at every meal you deserve to die of heart failure.
Looks like someone skipped past most of my points and linked a study that didn't look at the factor I mentioned, thus not even proving their own argument.
Actually the link was about your first point about policy makers needing studies to make policies, instead of doing what they think is right. So I gave yo ua study that showed that obesity cost 300 billion dollars a year in North America. I am glad you didn't even comment on it.
I did comment on it. It only looked at one side, thus it failed to address my argument. You need to look at both to determine which actually costs more. After all preventive medicine has a cost, but if you do examine the cost of the disease you have failed to provide a necessary premise to say preventing it is cheaper.
Additionally a scientific survey has a chance to be flat out wrong, so you would need several survey of each and attempt to find all and isolate all factors that can skew the results.
The rest of your point about water is ridiculus and dishonest really. So I didn't take the time to respond, but I'll humor you since you didn't like me ignoring your bad faith.
No, the rest was not on water alone. I put forth that you can regulate any activity that causes risk as well as the water part. Also the water argument is a Reductio Ad Absurdum of your own argument. If it is ridiculous then your own standard allows for ridiculous regulations and being a valid way to make an argument is not dishonest.
[snip]
It is not about the goverment saying you can and cannot put this in your face, but making sure corporations produce qualtiy food for people.
Your distinction has no difference and thus the statement is false. It is in fact about the government telling us what we can stuff in your face, because it REQUIRES preventing people from stuffing stuff the government thinks is bad for you. Whether it is good/bad to to this doesn't mean that you are not arguing for that.
Tell me, why do yo uthink we have norms about mercury or bacteriaes for food? We didn't alwasy have them. Do you think it is the government who is just evil and taking our liberties away?
You should quit beating that poor defenseless strawman. No one is arguing no standards or saying preventing food poisioning is something the government shouldn't do other than you. It is not the the position that opposition is given so you are not actually rebutting and argument being given with this.
Consider this, labels in the supermarket now require that transfat content to be listed on the labels. In response many of the products that previously contained transfats now do not. But if I want to get the chips that contain transfats, I still can. I have healthier choices and my liberty is protected.
As for banning cars, many small towns and rural areas do not have the population to support public transit and thus would harm both.
Indeed, except this is not medecine. This is making sure corporation do not produce poison. But it is clear you do not want to be convince.
It was an analogy to show you the error that you are making.
Actually the Brits also have a similar study. Smaller demographics and less fat people but it arrived at 50 billion pounds a year. Their is a cost to fatness. You might deny it, but their is one. No use for me to search for more, you'll just deny everything or say it is not safisfactory.
My original argument was that healthy people can occur enough end of life care costs that they might exceed the cost of unhealthy people. I am arguing what you think I am and that is why the response isn't satisfactory. you failed to meet a requirement to show the what you are saying,
Except mine aren't ridiculus. Trans fats, sodium, sugar are bad for your health AND can be taken out of food or reduced.
The required premise that the government should regulate unhealthy things that are unhealthy IN EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES then by extension by extension regulate the consumption of water which is unhealthy in excessive quantities.
Also you keep failing take into account the bolded part of my statement above. These things are not unhealthy in smaller quantities.
So the government shouldn't bother with bacteriaes in your food or level of mercury? Cause they are preventing you from stuffing your face with those tasty treats.
Once again you are the only one saying the government shouldn't monitor bacteria and mercury levels. Stop beating that strawman and deal with what people are actually saying.
Additionally, government monitors bacteria level mainly by a spot check, which is almost completely worthless. The random lab tests do better, but they waste money on the first type of checks.
] I'll stop beating that strawman when you'll recongnize that trans fat, sugar, sodium are also bad for you and need regulation like mercury and bacteriaes.
Need means that it is required. As we are not all dead then it is not actually needed. Also there is a vast difference in the effects of these three things and beating a strawman means that you are arguing outside the bounds of reason.
Also Sugar, like water, is necessary to live and bad in large quantities.
] If mercury soaked chips existed and we accepted that people ate them, maybe your point would have some value. But as a society we decided people shouldn't have that choice for their health, even if mercury in small quantities won't do much arm.
Mercury even in small quantities causes severe birth defects. Also chips in general have an unhealthy effect in large quantities, so by your argument chips and other types of unhealthy foods should be banned, not just one ingredient.
It is not like trans fat are irreplaceble either. They are just a short cut for corporations. A short cut that has a cost.
Though transfats do not cost as much as alternatives, they do not go rancid as fast, increase shelf life, and decrease refrigeration requirements.
Grow a sense of humor.
Indeed. Informing people is the key to anything. We might disagree on politics, but I am guessing you agree that investing in education is a sector where the government must spend.
Absolutely, but the teacher's unions need to go. They're abusing our kids by keeping lazy good for nothings employed and forbidding schools to fire them. I have no problem paying teachers good money, but they have to be held accountable for their actions or innactions like any other job.
Take McDonald's. It uses trans fats to cook it's frizes because it is cheap and gives them a unifrom taste around restaurants. But McDonald's can do without trans fat. In Denmark trans fats are outlawed, so McDonald's has found other oils to cook their food. Now Denmark's frizes have 28 time less trans fat in them. This is only a good thing for people's health and people can still eat frizes at McD's. Now I do not think an intelligent man like you would find this reprehensable.
Better health is not reprehensible, but many people I know won't go to McDonalds BECAUSE it is so unhealthy. McDonalds loses out on our money due to our knowledge of health. Teach people to avoid it and McDonalds will change to bring them back.
But why stop at trans fats? We know sodium and sugar/corn syryp are bad too. McD's pump their breads and patties with sodium and sugar partly because of conservation but also because these are "addictive". Especially to kids who taste sweet and salty far more then adults. Adults developping eating habits when young.
It's not the job of the government to regulate those things. People need to be held accountable for their own actions. If they choose to eat unhealthy, that is their choice and it should be accepted.
The food might be Crap, but it's not poisonous.
There is no reason you can give to justify your blind hatred of Miccy D's goldo.
And that's what it is, it's a hatred at this point. It's not poison.
Or is this really because it was created by someone of Anglo Descent?
People do need to be held accountable for their own actions, but so do corporations. To use poisonous ingredients in food is a reprehensible way to make money. This is why they also need to be held accountable for what they make and if it is not the government, who could?
Sugar, salt, corn syrup and trans fats are NOT poisons. They are only bad for you if you choose to eat them in excess. Eating them in excess is 100% the fault of the consumer. Even people who don't know that trans fats are, know that McDonalds is bad for you.
poison [ˈpɔɪzən]
n
1. (Medicine) any substance that can impair function, cause structural damage, or otherwise injure the body Related adj toxic
I think that N_M is right in the fact that they could be considered poisons by the purist of definitions.
poison [ˈpɔɪzən]n1. (Medicine) any substance that can impair function, cause structural damage, or otherwise injure the body Related adj toxic
I think that N_M is right in the fact that they could be considered poisons by the purist of definitions.
poison [ˈpɔɪzən]n1. (Medicine) any substance that can impair function, cause structural damage, or otherwise injure the body Related adj toxic
a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health
And the key phrase here is "inherent property."
People do need to be held accountable for their own actions, but so do corporations. To use poisonous ingredients in food is a reprehensible way to make money. This is why they also need to be held accountable for what they make and if it is not the government, who could?
Sugar, salt, corn syrup and trans fats are NOT poisons. They are only bad for you if you choose to eat them in excess. Eating them in excess is 100% the fault of the consumer. Even people who don't know that trans fats are, know that McDonalds is bad for you.
We'll have to disagrre. These are poisonous to our healths.
Not according to any objective facts.
I think that N_M is right in the fact that they could be considered poisons by the purist of definitions.
poison [ˈpɔɪzən]n1. (Medicine) any substance that can impair function, cause structural damage, or otherwise injure the body Related adj toxic
Going by that definition, I demand that the gov't ban oxygen in the US! It is clearly harmful to humans and we are better off without the deadly poisonous o2 polluting our healthy nitrogen/hydrogen/mixture of other gases found in our atmosphere!
If you don't like that definition how about this one?
poi·son ..."window.status='';return true;" onclick="yed_playpronun('http://education.yahoo.com/ref/dictionary/audio/p/0403500.wav');return false;" title="audio" onmouseover="window.status='Click to hear pronunciation';return true;">
(poi
z
n) KEY NOUN:
- A substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means.
- Something destructive or fatal.
- Chemistry & Physics A substance that inhibits another substance or a reaction: a catalyst poison.
OR
In the context of biology, poisons are substances that cause injury, illness, or death to organisms, usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale.
OR
poi·son (po̵i′zən)
noun
- a substance causing illness or death when eaten, drunk, or absorbed even in relatively small quantities
- anything harmful or destructive to happiness or welfare, such as an idea, emotion, etc.
- in a nuclear reactor, a substance, as boron, that readily absorbs thermal neutrons from a chain reaction, thereby decreasing the reactivity of a reactor core: it is used for safety or control
- Chem. a substance that inhibits or destroys the activity of a catalyst, enzyme, etc. or that interferes with or checks a reaction
(poizn) KEY
NOUN:
- A substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means.
- Something destructive or fatal.
- Chemistry & Physics A substance that inhibits another substance or a reaction: a catalyst poison.
None of the substances fit those definition as they do not cause injury, illness or death in and of themselves. Nor are they destructive or fatal. You have to do something more and actually take them to excess in order for harmful effects to occur.
In the context of biology, poisons are substances that cause injury, illness, or death to organisms, usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale.
Again. They do not do those things in and of themselves.
poi·son
(po̵i′zən)
noun
- a substance causing illness or death when eaten, drunk, or absorbed even in relatively small quantities
- anything harmful or destructive to happiness or welfare, such as an idea, emotion, etc.
- in a nuclear reactor, a substance, as boron, that readily absorbs thermal neutrons from a chain reaction, thereby decreasing the reactivity of a reactor core: it is used for safety or control
- Chem. a substance that inhibits or destroys the activity of a catalyst, enzyme, etc. or that interferes with or checks a reaction
I think that N_M is right in the fact that they could be considered poisons by the purist of definitions.
poison [ˈpɔɪzən]n1. (Medicine) any substance that can impair function, cause structural damage, or otherwise injure the body Related adj toxic
Actually, my response was that that fatness cost more then just medical care. Lost days at work are an example. I provided information on the cost of fatness to our society. Now you seem to believe that healthy people cost more then fat people, why don't you find that study, it is your theory. As Caesar would say: Get of your fatass!
No, I said that you assertion that fat people cost more more complicated than what you have put forth. It isn't up to me to complete someone else's incomplete argument. But HERE it is anyway. I still think that more research is needed to come to a conclusion.
logic fails. We regulate the quatity of dangerous stuff in our diet everyday.Trans fat should be one of them. Countries like Denmark have done it and they still get to enjoy frizes. They made a law to reduce the quantity of trans fat in food. Do you think Denmark is better off or not? You never answer this the first time I asked.
I do not really know if Denmark is better off. It doesn't matter that we regulate other stuff. Instead of addressing the problem with restricting the right of people because the government thinks that it knows better you jumped strait to we should.
Fact is we regulate dangerous stuff everyday. This is no different. We have dangerous stuff in food that need regulation.
Again we do not actually "need" it. Whether it is in the end better if we do, it still is not needed. Also the regulation of other stuff has no impact on whether we should regulate transfats.
This still ensure quality. But if you prefere to save a few dollars to put your life at risk, your weird.
Spot checks by the government do not do ot insure quality. If the product is bad enough to detect it that way customers of meat packing plants will refuse the shipment and that plant that produced it would loss money.
I would prefer that they spent the money in a more productive fashion.
Like saying the g'berment is trying to control our lives? And 300 billions dollards a year, kids being diabetic, high blood pressure, etc, are all examples of need.
No they are not examples of "need". I even bothered to sate that "need" means required. Whether or not to would be good is a separate issue that "need". And by regulating the activist that lead to these condition is a requirement that the government reduces my freedom by forcing choices on me. There is a difference in what is required to do what you say should be done and pulling up something separate.
] Also like water, different qualities of sugar and fat exist. Some are worse then others. And we can also legislate the quantity of those sugars and fat in food. You see too small.
It isn't that I see too small, it is that I can see the same argument being used to regulate almost every action in my life and reduce my choices to nothing. So perhaps it is you that sees too small.
And bad food in kids make them diform by obesity.
Huh, no. Excessive calories in the diet plus the lack of physical activity makes kids obese. People used to consume more calories and has lower rates of obesity.
] A small price to pay. And it has been done in Denmark. Sweet perverse Denmark.
Did you notice that most US companies has stopped using transfats without bannings? When you ban something by necessary it reduce peoples freedom to choose. Why not choose the path where people can choose not to consume unhealthy foods?
I think that N_M is right in the fact that they could be considered poisons by the purist of definitions.
poison [ˈpɔɪzən]n1. (Medicine) any substance that can impair function, cause structural damage, or otherwise injure the body Related adj toxic
If parents taught their children, it would be the improvement. Banning home lunches only hinders this, especially if the kids throw out half of the food the school says is better. The school is simply charging parents to drive their kids to malnutrition.
Sugar, salt, corn syrup and trans fats are NOT poisons. They are only bad for you if you choose to eat them in excess.
I completely agree. So here is a question: How much is too much sugar, salt, corn syrup, or transfats?
Another question: Should companies be allowed to knowingly put excessive amounts of sugar, salt, corn syrup, or transfats in food peoducts?
Yes, wonderful. Dodging the whole question that obesity is not just a question of medical cost.
No, I didn't. You either keep forgetting what I said or keep dodging the point. A full comparison is needed to come to a conclusion. I'm not saying your statement is wrong, it is just that you or anyone else that I know of have not put forth the evidence to prove it.
Healthier food and yet still can eat frize? I would say better off.
I would say otherwise because my choices have been reduced by necessity and thus my freedom is reduced. It also sets the president of removing further freedom because the government want me safer.
And stop beating the strawman of the the evil government.
I never said it was evil so your actually beating a strawman. I did say that what you want requires the government to take away my freedom to choose. You have not refuted that one.
Well we do not need to control bacteriaes then. Or level of mercury. We do not really need those.
Two strawmen beaten for the price of one.. I didn't say that the government should stick to those things that are needed and do nothing else. Additionally you are arguing against dropping regs that you alone keep putting forth.
Except that government isn't just spot checking, first and foremost it is legislating on safety norms. And the industry policing itself is not sufficiant. It needs to know it is being watched.
Which isn't something that I ever said.
The fatness of America is a sign of need. And stop beating the government strawman. This is not a question of your choices. Unless you believe being able to choosing food with more bacteriaes would be a good thing.
Once again, no it is not a need, government taking away my choose to eat unhealthily food is a requirement of what you want, and you are beating that strawman again.
Strawman.
It's a slippery slop argument, not a rephrasing of your argument to make it weaker then attacking my creation over your actual argument (one defintion of strawman). Your argument requires the government to restrict my ability to eat unhealthy and you state that it is to save the lives of people that choose to do so. That implicate premise to your argument can be used to take away any choice of mine that can lead to me making a decision that is bad for me.
It is not just a question of calories, but of the quality of what is injested. Trans fat is fat, but the worse we can eat, very dangerous. Like corn syrup is one of the worst sort of sugar we can eat.
Corn sugar is about the same as other sugars in its composition. It's not that corn sugar is worse for you than any other type, but it is consumed in too large amounts because of availability.
Transfats however lead to more weight gain than regular fats.
Strawman.
Horse feathers. A strawman is a rephrasing of your argument in a weaker form then addressing that instead of what you actually say. My own argument by defintion cannot be a strawman of your and your argument requires the restriction of choices whether you want to admit it or not, so is a logical and necessary consequence of what you say rather than a rephrasing. Without that restriction you would have no way to enforce limiting anything.
People do need to be held accountable for their own actions, but so do corporations. To use poisonous ingredients in food is a reprehensible way to make money. This is why they also need to be held accountable for what they make and if it is not the government, who could?
Sugar, salt, corn syrup and trans fats are NOT poisons. They are only bad for you if you choose to eat them in excess. Eating them in excess is 100% the fault of the consumer. Even people who don't know that trans fats are, know that McDonalds is bad for you.
We'll have to disagrre. These are poisonous to our healths.
Not according to any objective facts.
Errr.... Except the various definitions of poison?
None of which apply. Nothing about any food substance you and I are discussing is dangerous in and of itself. You have to do something extra like abuse it to make it dangerous. All the poison definitions require the substance itself to be dangerous.
I completely agree. So here is a question: How much is too much sugar, salt, corn syrup, or transfats?
Not having done the research, I really don't know. I know that I'm moderately careful and that seems to be good enough.
Another question: Should companies be allowed to knowingly put excessive amounts of sugar, salt, corn syrup, or transfats in food peoducts?
I doubt that there here is a food out there that will give you an excessive amount of those substances with one serving......or even a dozen. It takes a long time to hit the levels that become dangerous.
Not having done the research, I really don't know. I know that I'm moderately careful and that seems to be good enough.
Fair enough.
Another question: Should companies be allowed to knowingly put excessive amounts of sugar, salt, corn syrup, or transfats in food peoducts?
I doubt that there here is a food out there that will give you an excessive amount of those substances with one serving......or even a dozen. It takes a long time to hit the levels that become dangerous.
Has nothing to do with what I asked. It is a simple yes or no answer. Is there a reason why you are trying to avoid the question? Would you like to answer the question, or should I assume that you will just continue the conversation in bad faith? in which case, I would rather discuss it with someone else since you are more interested in not being wrong rather than discusing the topic.
Yes, but by your logic antimony isn't a poison. It takes big quantities to kill someone.
Harm, not kill. Small quantities of sodium, etc. do not cause HARM.
Also, trans fats are dangerous by themselves. The ycause heart problems. This is why countries banned them. Is not a sign of there dangerousness?
Not in small quanties.
Another question: Should companies be allowed to knowingly put excessive amounts of sugar, salt, corn syrup, or transfats in food peoducts?
Maxperson
I doubt that there here is a food out there that will give you an excessive amount of those substances with one serving......or even a dozen. It takes a long time to hit the levels that become dangerous.
You
Has nothing to do with what I asked. It is a simple yes or no answer. Is there a reason why you are trying to avoid the question? Would you like to answer the question, or should I assume that you will just continue the conversation in bad faith? in which case, I would rather discuss it with someone else since you are more interested in not being wrong rather than discusing the topic.
It is NOT a simple yes or no question. It is a trap question that has no yes or no answer that would apply to our discussion. Were I to answer yes, I would be saying that it would be okay for such companies to do the impossible and put too much of those substances in a single serving. Were I to answer no, I would be admitting that the companies can do the impossible and put too much of those substances into a single serving and that they should be stopped from doing the impossible.
Since those companies do not now, nor can they ever put too much of those substances into their food, I answered the question in the only manner left to me.
Since you insist on my answering the trap, I will do so in a way that includes, but is not limited to a yes or no.
No, the companies should not be allowed to do the impossible and put too much of those substances in. Fortunately it's impossible, so no legislation is needed.
Another question: Should companies be allowed to knowingly put excessive amounts of sugar, salt, corn syrup, or transfats in food peoducts?
Maxperson
I doubt that there here is a food out there that will give you an excessive amount of those substances with one serving......or even a dozen. It takes a long time to hit the levels that become dangerous.
Has nothing to do with what I asked. It is a simple yes or no answer. Is there a reason why you are trying to avoid the question? Would you like to answer the question, or should I assume that you will just continue the conversation in bad faith? in which case, I would rather discuss it with someone else since you are more interested in not being wrong rather than discusing the topic.
It is NOT a simple yes or no question. It is a trap question that has no yes or no answer that would apply to our discussion. Were I to answer yes, I would be saying that it would be okay for such companies to do the impossible and put too much of those substances in a single serving. Were I to answer no, I would be admitting that the companies can do the impossible and put too much of those substances into a single serving and that they should be stopped from doing the impossible.
Since those companies do not now, nor can they ever put too much of those substances into their food, I answered the question in the only manner left to me.
Since you insist on my answering the trap, I will do so in a way that includes, but is not limited to a yes or no.
No, the companies should not be allowed to do the impossible and put too much of those substances in. Fortunately it's impossible, so no legislation is needed.
could it be...A TRAP?
It is NOT a simple yes or no question. It is a trap question that has no yes or no answer that would apply to our discussion. Were I to answer yes, I would be saying that it would be okay for such companies to do the impossible and put too much of those substances in a single serving. Were I to answer no, I would be admitting that the companies can do the impossible and put too much of those substances into a single serving and that they should be stopped from doing the impossible.
Since those companies do not now, nor can they ever put too much of those substances into their food, I answered the question in the only manner left to me.
Since you insist on my answering the trap, I will do so in a way that includes, but is not limited to a yes or no.
No, the companies should not be allowed to do the impossible and put too much of those substances in. Fortunately it's impossible, so no legislation is needed.
well, seeing as you have already admitted that you have no clue as to what is too much of zny of those substances:
I completely agree. So here is a question: How much is too much sugar, salt, corn syrup, or transfats?
Not having done the research, I really don't know.
I think you are not quualified to determine whether or not a company has the ability to put too much of any of those substances. So let's fix up your answer...
It is NOT a simple yes or no question. It is a trap question that has no yes or no answer that would apply to our discussion. Were I to answer yes, I would be saying that it would be okay for such companies to do the impossible and put too much of those substances in a single serving. Were I to answer no, I would be admitting that the companies can do the impossible and put too much of those substances into a single serving and that they should be stopped from doing the impossible from causing us harm.
Since I don't know what is considered to be too much of any of those substancess those companies do not now, nor can they ever put too much of those substances into their food, I answered the question in the only manner left to me that would allow me to ignore logic and admit that I m wrong and don't know whether or not a company is capable of addiing too much of a harmful substances or whether they are already adding too much of a substance that is harmful.
Since you insist on my answering the trap questionn in an honest way, I will do so in a way that includes, but is not limited to a yes or no or the truth.
No, the companies should not be allowed to do the impossible and put too much of those substances in. Fortunately it's impossible I am ignorant to how much is too much, so no legislation is needed scares me.
Was it a trap? No. Not the question that you were so afraid to answer. Yoou fell into the trap the second you adnmitted you have not idea what is too much. In any case, I get the feeling that yoou are dead set on not being prven wrong in and way. shape, or form. Discussions with individuals like you are about as productive as conversations between your head and a cement wall. So as I made my point, I will withdraw from any further pointless discussions with you. Enjoy.
well, seeing as you have already admitted that you have no clue as to what is too much of zny of those substances:
But not too little. I don't know at what point it becomes too much, but I DO know that current amounts aren't there.
It is NOT a simple yes or no question. It is a trap question that has no yes or no answer that would apply to our discussion. Were I to answer yes, I would be saying that it would be okay for such companies to do the impossible and put too much of those substances in a single serving. Were I to answer no, I would be admitting that the companies can do the impossible and put too much of those substances into a single serving and that they should be stopped from doing the impossible.
Since those companies do not now, nor can they ever put too much of those substances into their food, I answered the question in the only manner left to me.
Since you insist on my answering the trap, I will do so in a way that includes, but is not limited to a yes or no
No, the companies should not be allowed to do the impossible and put too much of those substances in. Fortunately it's impossible, so no legislation is needed
I recorrected it for accuracy, since you didn't feel that accuracy was important when you corrected it in the first place.
Was it a trap? No. Not the question that you were so afraid to answer. Yoou fell into the trap the second you adnmitted you have not idea what is too much.
I said I dont know what is too much, BUT moderate effort is enough to avoid harm. It's like asking me how much water is in an olympic pool. I have no idea, but I DO know that the amount of water in a bathtub won't be enough.
So as I made my point, I will withdraw from any further pointless discussions with you. Enjoy.
With this comment, I have no choice but to assume that you leaving out the other half of the post was an intentional deception. A deliberate half truth to make your side look better. A shame really.
Yes, but by your logic antimony isn't a poison. It takes big quantities to kill someone.
Harm, not kill. Small quantities of sodium, etc. do not cause HARM.Also, trans fats are dangerous by themselves. The ycause heart problems. This is why countries banned them. Is not a sign of there dangerousness?
Not in small quanties.
Not rans fats. Even in small quantities they are dangerous for you heart (and waist)!
Note the bolded parts. There is no evidence that small amounts ARE absolutely harmful, but poisons are absolutely harmful, even in small amounts and in fact may be necessary.
The NAS is concerned "that dietary trans fatty acids are more deleterious with respect to coronary heart disease than saturated fatty acids". This analysis is supported by a 2006 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) scientific review that states "from a nutritional standpoint, the consumption of trans fatty acids results in considerable potential harm but no apparent benefit."Despite this concern, the NAS dietary recommendations have not recommended the elimination of trans fat from the diet. This is because trans fat is naturally present in many animal foods in trace quantities, and therefore its removal from ordinary diets might introduce undesirable side effects and nutritional imbalances if proper nutritional planning is not undertaken. The NAS has, therefore, "recommended that trans fatty acid consumption be as low as possible while consuming a nutritionally adequate diet". Like the NAS, the World Health Organization has tried to balance public health goals with a practical level of trans fat consumption, recommending in 2003 that trans fats be limited to less than 1% of overall energy intake.
But not too little. I don't know at what point it becomes too much, but I DO know that current amounts aren't there.
Incorrect. Since you don’t know what too much is, you don’t know whether or not the current amounts are too much or not (painfully obvious in your case).
I recorrected it for accuracy, since you didn't feel that accuracy was important when you corrected it in the first place.
Try again. Still wrong.
I said I dont know what is too much, BUT moderate effort is enough to avoid harm.
not knowing what I too much much means you can’t properly gauge what is moderate.
It's like asking me how much water is in an olympic pool. I have no idea, but I DO know that the amount of water in a bathtub won't be enough.
Has nothing to do with the topic. Good try though.
With this comment, I have no choice but to assume that you leaving out the other half of the post was an intentional deception. A deliberate half truth to make your side look better. A shame really.
Not sure what other half of the post you are referring to. Was it is the half that I had to correct?
Incorrect. Since you don’t know what too much is, you don’t know whether or not the current amounts are too much or not (painfully obvious in your case).
Proven false by my water analogy. I do not need to know what too much is in order to know that something does not qualify as too much. I can indeed know that $5 is not too much to spend on a refridgerator without knowing what the actual amount of "too much" is. You may not like the water analogy, but it illustrates my point rather clearly, despite your claims to the contrary.
Incorrect. Since you don’t know what too much is, you don’t know whether or not the current amounts are too much or not (painfully obvious in your case).Proven false by my water analogy. I do not need to know what too much is in order to know that something does not qualify as too much. I can indeed know that $5 is not too much to spend on a refridgerator without knowing what the actual amount of "too much" is. You may not like the water analogy, but it illustrates my point rather clearly, despite your claims to the contrary.
Also incorreect. You have knowledge of the size of an olympic size ssmming pool. You have previously stated you have no knowledge of the amount of a substance that would be considered too much. With the water, you might have an idea, but when it comes to sugar, salt, corn syrup, and transfats, you are clueless.
You are welcome to try again though
Incorrect. Since you don’t know what too much is, you don’t know whether or not the current amounts are too much or not (painfully obvious in your case).Proven false by my water analogy. I do not need to know what too much is in order to know that something does not qualify as too much. I can indeed know that $5 is not too much to spend on a refridgerator without knowing what the actual amount of "too much" is. You may not like the water analogy, but it illustrates my point rather clearly, despite your claims to the contrary.
Also incorreect. You have knowledge of the size of an olympic size ssmming pool. You have previously stated you have no knowledge of the amount of a substance that would be considered too much. With the water, you might have an idea, but when it comes to sugar, salt, corn syrup, and transfats, you are clueless.
You are wlcome to try again though
Um. I never said "no knowledge" or "No idea". I simply said that I didn't know what too much was. You are assuming facts not in evidence ;)
I am amazed at how you both are categorically opposed to each and every point the other makes. Line item veto!
I'm just against Big Brother trying to save me from every possible little bit of harm and he seems to be for it. Hard to come to a concensus with opposing views.
Not rans fats. Even in small quantities they are dangerous for you heart (and waist)!
You know, this is an out right lie.
Eating a double quarter pounder, or a hardees burger everyonce in a while isn't going to make you fat.
You can get fat off of eating nothing but fruit and vegetables too. Did you know that? "ZOMG WE NEED TO BAN FRUIT AND VEGETABLES BECAUSE IF YOU EAT TOO MANY OF THEM YOU CAN GET FAT ZOMG!" That's your logic, Goldo.
In other words it's not logic.
Did you know sitting on your ass for most of your life is the leading cause for becoming a fatass?! Omg we should ban chairs!
I challenge you goldo to go down to a Hardees, order the full pound burger and eat it. You will not die of a heartattack afterwards. Your heart rate isn't going to spike and your chloresterol count isn't going to jump. The only Irrational Fear here is the same Soccer Mob I mean Mom mentality that tried to fear monger videogames.
Yep, and trans fats, sugar and sodium are equivalent to arsenic, lead and asbestos! Er, wait ...
Why not? That is the thing. We didn't always check for mercury, lead, etc. This is just recongnizing them as danerous substances.
Of course the food lobby is strong. That is the main herdle in this dossier. That and people with irrationa lfear of big brother...
The main hurdle is that transfat, salt, etc. is nowhere NEAR as important as lead, mercury or asbestos.
Incorrect. Since you don’t know what too much is, you don’t know whether or not the current amounts are too much or not (painfully obvious in your case).Proven false by my water analogy. I do not need to know what too much is in order to know that something does not qualify as too much. I can indeed know that $5 is not too much to spend on a refridgerator without knowing what the actual amount of "too much" is. You may not like the water analogy, but it illustrates my point rather clearly, despite your claims to the contrary.
Also incorreect. You have knowledge of the size of an olympic size ssmming pool. You have previously stated you have no knowledge of the amount of a substance that would be considered too much. With the water, you might have an idea, but when it comes to sugar, salt, corn syrup, and transfats, you are clueless.
You are wlcome to try again though
Um. I never said "no knowledge" or "No idea". I simply said that I didn't know what too much was. You are assuming facts not in evidence ;)
Fact: you said you don't know what too much is. You could have an idea as to what you want to be too much, but seeing as you don't know, I'm going too think that it would require you to guess an absurd amount in order to make youerself feel better and not be wrong.
I am amazed at how you both are categorically opposed to each and every point the other makes. Line item veto!
I'm just against Big Brother trying to save me from every possible little bit of harm and he seems to be for it. Hard to come to a concensus with opposing views.
Not at all. I just don't believe that every regulation is an evil plot by "Big Brother" to control me. Peoplew that say things like "Big Brother" sound paranoid to me.
Here is a question for you1: Do you have an aidea, a guess, or an assumption as to what would be the lower limit for any of the mentioned substances to be too much?
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 This is a question, not a trap, but if you feel that you would be giving too much away or become entrapped by some nafarious evil plot created by the squirrel overloards running the shadoiw government, you are free2 to ignore it.
2 So we would have you think
Fact: you said you don't know what too much is. You could have an idea as to what you want to be too much, but seeing as you don't know, I'm going too think that it would require you to guess an absurd amount in order to make youerself feel better and not be wrong.
::shrug:: Suit yourself. I am not wrong, though. I do have an idea of things and I know the the current levels of things are not in a single serving "too much" You seem to think that you have the "facts", so show proof that at the current levels, single servings are "too much" in and of themselves.
Not at all. I just don't believe that every regulation is an evil plot by "Big Brother" to control me. Peoplew that say things like "Big Brother" sound paranoid to me.
We aren't talking about "every" regulation, but rather the "over" regulation that you are advocating. "Big Brother" is also talking about the government as something that needs to protect you from everything, including your own shadow.
Fact: you said you don't know what too much is. You could have an idea as to what you want to be too much, but seeing as you don't know, I'm going too think that it would require you to guess an absurd amount in order to make youerself feel better and not be wrong.
::shrug:: Suit yourself. I am not wrong, though. I do have an idea of things and I know the the current levels of things are not in a single serving "too much" You seem to think that you have the "facts", so show proof that at the current levels, single servings are "too much" in and of themselves.
I'm notsure where you are getting that I said the current levels of those substances are too much. All I have argued it that it is not a bad thing for the government to regulate businesses so that they don't consider their profits over the consumer's health. I'm fairly contended with the companies I buy products from. They do a pretty good job of producing healthy. But hey, if it makes you feel better, you can make this into some paranoid conspiracy of how they government wants to control you lactose intake, and what kind of toilet paper you will be required to use. Enjoy.
Not at all. I just don't believe that every regulation is an evil plot by "Big Brother" to control me. Peoplew that say things like "Big Brother" sound paranoid to me.
We aren't talking about "every" regulation, but rather the "over" regulation that you are advocating. "Big Brother" is also talking about the government as something that needs to protect you from everything, including your own shadow.
Well if that's how you see it then maybe you are a bit paranoid. I can offer you my services. I charge $70/hr plus an additional $30 technology fee since we would more than likely be having therapy sessions over a webcam. The good thing is that there are no evil government regulations that I have to worry about in order to provide you therapy, so it should be cool.
Note: Advocating for regulation does not mean that I am advocating for over regulation. Big difference. You may want to learn the difference ;)
Fact: you said you don't know what too much is. You could have an idea as to what you want to be too much, but seeing as you don't know, I'm going too think that it would require you to guess an absurd amount in order to make youerself feel better and not be wrong.
::shrug:: Suit yourself. I am not wrong, though. I do have an idea of things and I know the the current levels of things are not in a single serving "too much" You seem to think that you have the "facts", so show proof that at the current levels, single servings are "too much" in and of themselves.
I'm notsure where you are getting that I said the current levels of those substances are too much. All I have argued it that it is not a bad thing for the government to regulate businesses so that they don't consider their profits over the consumer's health.
Because if they are not too much, then they are fine. It can't be both ways. If they are fine, then the companies are NOT putting profits over consumer health and should be left alone.
I'm fairly content with the companies I buy products from. They do a pretty good job of producing healthy.
Then there is no need for more regulation.
But hey, if it makes you feel better, you can make this into some paranoid conspiracy of how they government wants to control you lactose intake, and what kind of toilet paper you will be required to use. Enjoy.
It has already tried to control my healthcare in ways that are unconstitutional. Why should I trust it with anything else?
[But you do recongnize they have an ill effect on health. So why tolerate dangerous stuff in our food? Their is no logical reason for that especially that it can be taken out and replace or reduced with only beneficial impacts on us.
I tolerate it because it has zero ill effect unless I choose for there to be an ill effect by eating too much of it. The reason it should not be taken out is that I already have the choice to go buy stuff that doesn't have it in. There's no need for more regulation.
Not at all. I just don't believe that every regulation is an evil plot by "Big Brother" to control me. Peoplew that say things like "Big Brother" sound paranoid to me.
We aren't talking about "every" regulation, but rather the "over" regulation that you are advocating. "Big Brother" is also talking about the government as something that needs to protect you from everything, including your own shadow.
Well if that's how you see it then maybe you are a bit paranoid. I can offer you my services. I charge $70/hr plus an additional $30 technology fee since we would more than likely be having therapy sessions over a webcam. The good thing is that there are no evil government regulations that I have to worry about in order to provide you therapy, so it should be cool.
Note: Advocating for regulation does not mean that I am advocating for over regulation. Big difference. You may want to learn the difference ;)
Heh. My mother, step-father, uncle and a few cousins are all licensed therapists with private practices. I get enough during family get togethers, but thank you for the offer
Because if they are not too much, then they are fine. It can't be both ways. If they are fine, then the companies are NOT putting profits over consumer health and should be left alone.
You are right, it can't be both ways. But you seem to think that it can only be one way. It is either too much or nothing. There is a happy medium that should be reached. Advocating against any regulation because it would mean that the government trying to controll your life does not help in acheiving any progress.
Then there is no need for more regulation.
Not all companies are the same. There are some industries that do require more regulation. Maybe not all industries or companies, but there are plenty that do.
It has already tried to control my healthcare in ways that are unconstitutional. Why should I trust it with anything else?
O.k I'm not going to get into that one with you. You are pretty close minded about the food industry. I could imagine what you would say if we started discussing that. I would probably rather listen to Limbaugh's radio show1.
1 I would rather put a fork through my eye than liten to hi show. Not because he is a conservative, but because I don't want to listen to a fat guy make love to himself on the radio.
[But you do recongnize they have an ill effect on health. So why tolerate dangerous stuff in our food? Their is no logical reason for that especially that it can be taken out and replace or reduced with only beneficial impacts on us.
I tolerate it because it has zero ill effect unless I choose for there to be an ill effect by eating too much of it. The reason it should not be taken out is that I already have the choice to go buy stuff that doesn't have it in. There's no need for more regulation.
You can't choose to have chemicals to affect you or not. They have an effect on you, even in small quantities.
Yes, but the effect is not ILL in those small quantities.
Well if that's how you see it then maybe you are a bit paranoid. I can offer you my services. I charge $70/hr plus an additional $30 technology fee since we would more than likely be having therapy sessions over a webcam. The good thing is that there are no evil government regulations that I have to worry about in order to provide you therapy, so it should be cool.
Note: Advocating for regulation does not mean that I am advocating for over regulation. Big difference. You may want to learn the difference ;)
100$? You charge as much as a prostitute.
But at least you can go home without herpes
O.k I'm not going to get into that one with you. You are pretty close minded about the food industry. I could imagine what you would say if we started discussing that. I would probably rather listen to Limbaugh's radio show1.
1 I would rather put a fork through my eye than liten to hi show. Not because he is a conservative, but because I don't want to listen to a fat guy make love to himself on the radio.
Hey! We agree on something! I actually put him on every once in a while for the humor value.
Well if that's how you see it then maybe you are a bit paranoid. I can offer you my services. I charge $70/hr plus an additional $30 technology fee since we would more than likely be having therapy sessions over a webcam. The good thing is that there are no evil government regulations that I have to worry about in order to provide you therapy, so it should be cool.
Note: Advocating for regulation does not mean that I am advocating for over regulation. Big difference. You may want to learn the difference ;)
100$? You charge as much as a prostitute.
But at least you can go home without herpes
You presume that he doesn't have it already ;)
1 I would rather put a fork through my eye than liten to hi show. Not because he is a conservative, but because I don't want to listen to a fat guy make love to himself on the radio.
I listen to Rush frequently, and he does all that in jest. I think it is funny as hell.
*shrug*
1 I would rather put a fork through my eye than liten to hi show. Not because he is a conservative, but because I don't want to listen to a fat guy make love to himself on the radio.
I listen to Rush frequently, and he does all that in jest. I think it is funny as hell.
*shrug*
Yeah. I agree that it is in jest and funny, but he gets frequently engages in fallacy after fallacy to get people to agree with his positions. I find that humorous as well, but he fools a lot of people into believing him.
he gets frequently engages in fallacy after fallacy to get people to agree with his positions. ... but he fools a lot of people into believing him.
I certainly disagree with you there, but... *shrug*
Things the government of the USA have done in the past "for the greater good" include locking people in concentration camps during WWI and WWII. Suspending habeas corpus, taking away privately owned gold, allowing Americans to be executed without trail, and other varies things that are just horrid. In the article in the original post the government not only stops parents from making "unhealthy" lunched for there children to eat at school, they stop them from making healthy lunches that the kids will actually eat. As the kids actually through away allot of these healthy lunches, they could make it up by eating more unhealthy food at home or ending up less well nourished.
To do this you need to weigh the impact on personal liberties against what the government is actually doing. To do that you must get the facts right to start with. That means that if you think citizens becoming fat costs more, you must take into account the additional cost that come from being healthy. The article I included showed that healthy people can have expenses that unhealthy do not. As the articles you linked do not necessary show that being fat costs more, as being lazy can lead to the same losses and also can make you fat and healthy people have expenses that where not part of the study. Drug companies, for instance, do multiple studies on the effects of drugs, and with enough you can get one to say that a toxic drug is actually helpful. This link has and example, as well as explaining why two things happening together doesn't mean that one caused the other.
I want the governments actions to be based on facts and reason, not one sided arguments. That means you need to test hypotheses before implemented into policy or rejecting policies because they might be wrong.
Hey! We agree on something! I actually put him on every once in a while for the humor value.
I can' listen to him. I can listen to just about anyone, but that guy is too much. My problem with him isn't his points of views on topics, it's how he consitently blows himself full of hot air. I'd say his show is about 10% political and 905 self-loving.
1 I would rather put a fork through my eye than liten to hi show. Not because he is a conservative, but because I don't want to listen to a fat guy make love to himself on the radio.
I listen to Rush frequently, and he does all that in jest. I think it is funny as hell.
*shrug*
I use to have a kid I gave therapy to. He was autistic and probably had a few other things going on. Sometimes to get out of therapy he would soil his pants and then stick his hand in there, get some
and eat it1. Some people just have strange tastes 1 I stopped working with him because I refuse to clean up any messes. I don't care how much you want to pay me, I'm not doing it. Everytime he needed to be changed I made his parents do it. I required that at least one of them stay in the clinic I was working at at the time in order to make sure they were available to do it.
I want the governments actions to be based on facts and reason, not one sided arguments. That means you need to test hypotheses before implemented into policy or rejecting policies because they might be wrong.
I want the governments actions to be based on facts and reason, not one sided arguments. That means you need to test hypotheses before implemented into policy or rejecting policies because they might be wrong.
That is a better statement. You can reject policies that would be for the best by failing in reason as well.
I want the governments actions to be based on facts and reason, not one sided arguments. That means you need to test hypotheses before implemented into policy or rejecting policies because they might be wrong.
That is a better statement. You can reject policies that would be for the best by failing in reason as well.
Exactly.
] Putting trans fats in food is a right? Corporations have the right to put anything they want in food? This is not a question of rights.
Beating that strawman again instead of actually addressing what I wrote? What I said is my personal freedoms and liberates are being reduced, I didn't mention any rights of corporations even once in this thread.
And for the second time you still haven't answer my question about Danish fries.
I did, and you yelled strawman instead of listening. Even in the best light for what you are saying a bad or fallacious response is still a response, but I'll answer again. The restaurants in the USA have mainly switched over to frying there fries in non-transfat oils by their own choice. That means I can get the "healthier" fries If I so choose and I really do not know if the Danish is better off for banning high transfat oils.
Please this sort of argument has nothing to do in this conversation. This is insulting. And you give lessons on strawmans and what not?
I was explaining my own position which be defintion cannot be a strawman. If you look at it in context of the whole post it does make sense. If you do not bother to check the facts you can end up with conclusions that are bad in the name of good.
I've said a few times that the Chicago initiative wasn't the proper thing to do. You are changing the subject. We are talking about something different, reglementing what is put in food for safety reasons.
Which is what the school is doing and thus removing the liberties and freedoms of parents. It is tied to the conversation in that manner and in context to fully examining both side before coming to a conclusion.
Except this is not a question of individual rights. Way to move the goal post.
Actually as I have been saying from the start that it affects personal liberates and freedom of choice it is you that move the goal post to "rights" which are not the same thing. It also ties in once again examining all the impacts of a decision to make a choice and thus impacts two different parts of what we are talking about.
The way you talk you'd almost think your advocating unhealthiness and shorter life spends.
Only if looked out of context. I'm saying that factors that you didn't include when making a statement about obesity costing more where not included. You should include them to reduce the chances of coming to a wrong conclusion. This is something that ran through out my last post and you ignored my shouting strawman.
You are neglecting the impact of obesity. Like how bus reglementations have to be adapted for obese people in the US. This sort of "little" thing add up. But you are right I cannot prove more.
FOR THE LOVE OF PELOR! I'm not neglecting that because I am saying that you didn't include all factor when reaching a conclusion. You can do that and still be right, but the chances of a conclusion being wrong go up when it is done. Once gain this links into my stating that you must get all the facts before coming to conclusion and I'm saying that you failed to do that.
I want the governments actions to be based on facts and reason, not one sided arguments. That means you need to test hypotheses before implemented into policy or rejecting policies because they might be wrong.
What did you write originally?
basically the bolded part was gone. It can read both statements to be the same, but the second is more clear.
Now as you shouted strawman and moved the goal posts instead of addressing even one of my points, why don't you go back and try again?
RH, are you saying Limbaugh's show is ironic?
No.
And I didn't mean to give that impression.
I find his show highly informational, educational, and entertaining.
I think it is absolutely hilarious the way Rush blows his own horn!
And it is obvious, to any reasonable person, that Rush is tooting his own horn just for laughs.
You must eat a bag of fries. Bag A contains fries cooked in trans fat heavy oil that have been heavily salted. Bag B contains fries cooked in trans fat free oil that have been heavily 'salted' with arsenic. Which bag do you consume?
Still sound like the same thing?
And yes, I understand that this isn't exactly the point you're shooting for but I also don't care. Cuz, see, nobody has said that there should be no regulations whatsoever.
No.
And I didn't mean to give that impression.
I find his show highly informational, educational, and entertaining.
Well, one out of three ain't bad, I guess…
I think it is absolutely hilarious the way Rush blows his own horn!
And it is obvious, to any reasonable person, that Rush is tooting his own horn just for laughs.
If "tooting/blowing his own horn" is a euphemism for masturbation then you are 100% correct.
You mentionned rights in your last post where you responded to me. Like I said many many times, this is not a issue of individuals rights/freedom/liberty. This touches corporations and corporations do not have the right to put anything they want in food.
Oops I did. However I didn't mention corporations, so you still managed a strawman. Sorry for my error though. Additionally just saying that is not isn't actually an argument that is not. You need to back the statement up with something or it is just your personal belief.
You confuse entitlement and privileges with rights. If a corporation stops producing a product because it wasn't profitable, your rights aren't touched anymore then if the government says a product cannot be made anymore or that an alternative ingredient must be used.
Oh, say I want to sell fries, then they have told me how I must prepare them. I also wouldn't be able to buy transfat oils to use at home. Both of these limit what I can do that thus my freedoms.
Mainly but not all. Autoregulation has it's limites. Especially with dangerous stuff.
??? Honestly I cannot connect this with the statement of mine that you responded to.
Do you mean self-regulation?, because the dangerous stuff costs money when they get sued or people do not buy the dangerous products. The more blatantly dangerous the better that self-regulation works. only those things that are dangerous, but do not seem that why is when it has trouble working. If you means self-regulation you also didn't answer my question, why not let it work in the case of transfats rather than mandating it?
Amusing. I would almost believe you do not believe trans fats are dangerous to health. Like saying you wouldn't know if banning asbestos would be a good thing.
Out of context it would look like that. If an individual wants to eat something unhealthy that should be there choice. If it isn't then their freedom would be necessarily be limited.
It was a slippery slope still of argument. Regulating trans fats might lead to Big Brother.
I'm having trouble connecting this the conversation. I explained my position and you said strawman. Accusing others of strawman cannot be a slippery slope argument. A slipper slope argument goes A makes B more likely and generally goes on that B makes C more likely. So my saying that for the greater good alone is not enough to justify policy and you must examine both sides cannot lead to that slippery slop as A isn't connected.
Though if you meaning this as a question, then no it wasn't. It shows as I stated above that for the greater good isn't enough to justify a position and you must examine both sides.
That question has been settle. You are debating with me the merites of regulating what corporations put into food. Bringing Chicago back is just changing the subject.
No, and I explained why it wasn't changing the subject in my last post. I pointed out what happen when you do something for the greater good without examining both side AND it directly applied a statement that you made. If that statement in in contradiction to your previous statement on the home lunch banning then one of those two statements must be wrong. Therefor you should change on position or the other.
You are confusing rights/freedom/liberties with entitlement and privileges. Being able to buy stuff ins't freedom.
Being able to exchange money for goods and services is a a part of freedom. Forcing someone not to engage in voluntary exchanges of goods/services by necessity stops many free acts. Lets say that the government says that people cannot sell a book that they do not like, that prevents free speech.
In fact the extreme end of this statement would be requiring government being able to control all exchanges of goods.services and dictating how they happen. That means they government tells me when and what to exchanges of property and services so the individuals would have no control over it.
I worship the Burning Hate, he doesn't give out love.
Your statement was as reasonable as especting Pelor's love.
To me you sound more like someone who'll deny anything that just doesn't fit with how he sees the world.
No, I'm applying two standard of reason that you keep ignoring. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and the need to look at all other variables. The opposite is a fallacy or or failing of reason. Also you used a personal attack on me rather than actually addressing the point. Studies can point of correlations, but the correlation themselves is not enough to say that one caused the other.
So to come to the conclusion that obesity costs money you need to look at possible expenses that occur from both being obese and not being obese. Some of these thing are easy to show the connection like larger seats for fat people. Other like higher end of life medical costs for the health need to be taken into account. Additionally it is possible in some cases for a factor to cause both meaning one didn't cause another.
Now as you shouted strawman and moved the goal posts instead of addressing even one of my points, why don't you go back and try again?
I always adress your point. You just refuse to adress mine.
You might try to, but you often do not.
Another though occurs to me, if for some reason there was no negative impact of doing so, would you want all unhealthy food like potato chips banned?
Self-regulating doesn't work. Some do the changes others don't, but if something is dangerous, all must do it. Thus the need of government regulation.
Right. The gov't regulates things like cocaine. They've gone so far as to ban the stuff. It is therefore impossible to acquire cocaine. Er ... wait.
I guess gov't regulation just ain't as good as ya think, eh? ;)
Something benign like transfat equipped food?
That regulation would fail faster than you could say Prohibition.
You were not talking as a seller but as a buyer. Nice way to dodge.
In both cases he was the buyer. Once as a business wanting to buy trans fat oil so he can make fries to sell and once as common Joe Consumer to use at home for himself.
This is circuler. Problem is not everyone have the proper education to make an inlighten choice and that parents feed kids with this.
Then teach them.
Kids do not choose what they eat and adults developpe their future eating habits when kids.
My daughter has different eating habits than both myself and her mother.
Also, we do not let corporation sell dangerous food contaning mercury and bacteriaes.
Zombie_Babies had it right. Let's give you a choice between a sandwhich filled with transfats, a sandwhich filled with mercury and a sandwhich filled with salmonella. You MUST choose one or Uncle Sam is going to shoot you. Which one are you going to eat? I'll answer for myself and say that I will pick the one that won't do much to me at all and go with the transfat sandwhich. I'm curious which one you will pick.
Your examples are extreme and useless in this conversation. We are talking about reglementing what corporation make and sell, like we already do now without anyone crying for the loss of freedom, not fascism.
They go together hand in hand. If you stop corporations from being able to use and sell transfats, then I cannot go to a store and buy any transfats for myself. You have taken away one of my freedoms. No thank you.
What? Both sides of reglementing what corporations make and sell? Well on one side we have public health and on the other we have the rights of corporation to produce and sell stuff. Now here we know trans fat arm people and we know that they can be replaced by less armful oils. Hmmm...
Since you are so keen on the government regulating the minutae of our health for our own good, how come you haven't suggested that the government force us to exercise for 2 hours every day? It would be more effective than anything that you have suggested so far in getting us healthy.
Slippery slop. And to continue in this logic, why not let corporations sell over the counter weapon grade plutonium?
I'm not sure what slipper slop has to do with anything other than you shouldn't step in it, but if you can't see the difference between weapon grade plutonium and salt, you're pretty far gone ;)
Then we are condamn to stagnation and paralysis. We wouldn't be able to make any discission without a dozen studies that look at every possible avenue.
LOL This is already business as usual with the State and Federal governments
Ideally we would just eat veggies, beans, nuts, rice... and meat once or twice a week. This is not realitic, at leat in our time and day. But we can improve certain aspect of our diets, by banning or reducing the quantity of some of the ingredients that are used.
Or since you are an advocate of removing our freedoms, just have the government force every man, woman and child to exercise 2 hours per day. It would be MUCH more effective.
Except cocaine ain't dangerous.
Touche.
If business want to stay legit, they'll follow regulations. Some don't but at least in theory they'll get punished once caught. This is better then letting the wolfs guard the chicken's... house of chicken.
And what about businesses that have a desire for profit that outweighs their desire to be legit? I'm sure you can think of one or two of those. ;)
Regulation for certain stuff is needed, sure. But it's not some sort of cure all, either. In the case of things that are not immediately dangerous or who's negative impact is so small it can be mitigated through other means (exercise, for example), there's really no need. Give people all of the knowledge possible to make a decision, yes. But also make sure they're allowed to make that decision.
That logic fails. If true, it would be useless to do anything.
Also, it is not like food will actually be taken out of the shelves. Replacement, safer replacements, exist.
It is useless to do anything if you expect a total solution. The point is that bans of common things do not effectively ban them. The solution isn't a solution.
And food would be taken off the shelves. Food with trans fats (or whatever other marginally dangerous substance you choose) would, by virtue of what you're suggesting, be taken from the shelves. As that's the case, we'd no longer be able to choose food with trans fats in it. Choice removed.
To illustrate: if Coke were banned for whatever reason, Pepsi could be said to be a replacement. That does nothing to change the fact that I can no longer choose to purchase Coke. Product removed, choice removed.
Like the successful regulating it was in Denmak?
The government could probably pass anything they wanted in Denmark.
Look up Prohibtion.
Look what resulted from it. (and the myriad of issues we are Still dealing with because of it)
There is no point in regulating something that isn't actually dangerous to the person ingesting it goldo. I could go grab some of that evil wicked transfat ridden food (which I'm going to be doing in a few minutes actually), eat it and not suffer for it.
We have had food loaded with this stuff for over sixty years, it hasn't been a problem. The real problem is, that our children do not do any form of activity at home or school, which is only reinforced by the Nanny Society who's too scared to let kids be kids and play. Which creates a sloth like adult later in life.
When the physical activity in America dropped, and once the "you are fine just as you are" Bs started vomiting from our televisions, the waist lines jumped outwards.
So when you're doing something that isn't physically taxing, and eating over your daily limit of calories, it's no small wonder we have an obesity problem.
See, what we need to do is attach all TVs and PCs to bicycle machines where if you don't maintain a set calories/hour it turns off.
Even simpler: make them muscle-operated power generators. Cheap energy to boot!
- If this is used by both the fit and the unfit, then the unfit will just give up because they can't sustain it. So you have to have a curve allowing them to get a start and just adjust the difficulty/whatever needed over time.
- I'm not sure on the math, but I'm not sure even someone that's reasonably fit could maintain the power needed to run a modern gaming PC, monitor, peripheral devices, speakers and so-on for a decent length of time. I might be wrong on this point as it's not my field at all, but that's what my gut is telling me.
You could have it assissted, so the energy you generate helps, but I don't think it'd be practical to fully support the electronic devices with the power you generate for two reasons:But yeah, definitely use the power it generates, but I don't think it would work to rely on it exclusively.
- If this is used by both the fit and the unfit, then the unfit will just give up because they can't sustain it. So you have to have a curve allowing them to get a start and just adjust the difficulty/whatever needed over time.
- I'm not sure on the math, but I'm not sure even someone that's reasonably fit could maintain the power needed to run a modern gaming PC, monitor, peripheral devices, speakers and so-on for a decent length of time. I might be wrong on this point as it's not my field at all, but that's what my gut is telling me.
GASP. But that would mean people would have to.... have to.... GO OUTSIDE for entertainment. D:
Egads!
RH, are you saying Limbaugh's show is ironic?
No.
And I didn't mean to give that impression.
I find his show highly informational, educational, and entertaining.
I think it is absolutely hilarious the way Rush blows his own horn!
And it is obvious, to any reasonable person, that Rush is tooting his own horn just for laughs.
You must eat a bag of fries. Bag A contains fries cooked in trans fat heavy oil that have been heavily salted. Bag B contains fries cooked in trans fat free oil that have been heavily 'salted' with arsenic. Which bag do you consume?
Still sound like the same thing?
And yes, I understand that this isn't exactly the point you're shooting for but I also don't care. Cuz, see, nobody has said that there should be no regulations whatsoever.
No.
And I didn't mean to give that impression.
I find his show highly informational, educational, and entertaining.
Well, one out of three ain't bad, I guess…
I think it is absolutely hilarious the way Rush blows his own horn!
And it is obvious, to any reasonable person, that Rush is tooting his own horn just for laughs.
If "tooting/blowing his own horn" is a euphemism for masturbation then you are 100% correct.
You mentionned rights in your last post where you responded to me. Like I said many many times, this is not a issue of individuals rights/freedom/liberty. This touches corporations and corporations do not have the right to put anything they want in food.
Oops I did. However I didn't mention corporations, so you still managed a strawman. Sorry for my error though. Additionally just saying that is not isn't actually an argument that is not. You need to back the statement up with something or it is just your personal belief.
You confuse entitlement and privileges with rights. If a corporation stops producing a product because it wasn't profitable, your rights aren't touched anymore then if the government says a product cannot be made anymore or that an alternative ingredient must be used.
Oh, say I want to sell fries, then they have told me how I must prepare them. I also wouldn't be able to buy transfat oils to use at home. Both of these limit what I can do that thus my freedoms.
Mainly but not all. Autoregulation has it's limites. Especially with dangerous stuff.
??? Honestly I cannot connect this with the statement of mine that you responded to.
Do you mean self-regulation?, because the dangerous stuff costs money when they get sued or people do not buy the dangerous products. The more blatantly dangerous the better that self-regulation works. only those things that are dangerous, but do not seem that why is when it has trouble working. If you means self-regulation you also didn't answer my question, why not let it work in the case of transfats rather than mandating it?
Amusing. I would almost believe you do not believe trans fats are dangerous to health. Like saying you wouldn't know if banning asbestos would be a good thing.
Out of context it would look like that. If an individual wants to eat something unhealthy that should be there choice. If it isn't then their freedom would be necessarily be limited.
It was a slippery slope still of argument. Regulating trans fats might lead to Big Brother.
I'm having trouble connecting this the conversation. I explained my position and you said strawman. Accusing others of strawman cannot be a slippery slope argument. A slipper slope argument goes A makes B more likely and generally goes on that B makes C more likely. So my saying that for the greater good alone is not enough to justify policy and you must examine both sides cannot lead to that slippery slop as A isn't connected.
Though if you meaning this as a question, then no it wasn't. It shows as I stated above that for the greater good isn't enough to justify a position and you must examine both sides.
That question has been settle. You are debating with me the merites of regulating what corporations put into food. Bringing Chicago back is just changing the subject.
No, and I explained why it wasn't changing the subject in my last post. I pointed out what happen when you do something for the greater good without examining both side AND it directly applied a statement that you made. If that statement in in contradiction to your previous statement on the home lunch banning then one of those two statements must be wrong. Therefor you should change on position or the other.
You are confusing rights/freedom/liberties with entitlement and privileges. Being able to buy stuff ins't freedom.
Being able to exchange money for goods and services is a a part of freedom. Forcing someone not to engage in voluntary exchanges of goods/services by necessity stops many free acts. Lets say that the government says that people cannot sell a book that they do not like, that prevents free speech.
In fact the extreme end of this statement would be requiring government being able to control all exchanges of goods.services and dictating how they happen. That means they government tells me when and what to exchanges of property and services so the individuals would have no control over it.
I worship the Burning Hate, he doesn't give out love.
Your statement was as reasonable as especting Pelor's love.
To me you sound more like someone who'll deny anything that just doesn't fit with how he sees the world.
No, I'm applying two standard of reason that you keep ignoring. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and the need to look at all other variables. The opposite is a fallacy or or failing of reason. Also you used a personal attack on me rather than actually addressing the point. Studies can point of correlations, but the correlation themselves is not enough to say that one caused the other.
So to come to the conclusion that obesity costs money you need to look at possible expenses that occur from both being obese and not being obese. Some of these thing are easy to show the connection like larger seats for fat people. Other like higher end of life medical costs for the health need to be taken into account. Additionally it is possible in some cases for a factor to cause both meaning one didn't cause another.
Now as you shouted strawman and moved the goal posts instead of addressing even one of my points, why don't you go back and try again?
I always adress your point. You just refuse to adress mine.
You might try to, but you often do not.
Another though occurs to me, if for some reason there was no negative impact of doing so, would you want all unhealthy food like potato chips banned?
Self-regulating doesn't work. Some do the changes others don't, but if something is dangerous, all must do it. Thus the need of government regulation.
Right. The gov't regulates things like cocaine. They've gone so far as to ban the stuff. It is therefore impossible to acquire cocaine. Er ... wait.
I guess gov't regulation just ain't as good as ya think, eh? ;)
Something benign like transfat equipped food?
That regulation would fail faster than you could say Prohibition.
You were not talking as a seller but as a buyer. Nice way to dodge.
In both cases he was the buyer. Once as a business wanting to buy trans fat oil so he can make fries to sell and once as common Joe Consumer to use at home for himself.
This is circuler. Problem is not everyone have the proper education to make an inlighten choice and that parents feed kids with this.
Then teach them.
Kids do not choose what they eat and adults developpe their future eating habits when kids.
My daughter has different eating habits than both myself and her mother.
Also, we do not let corporation sell dangerous food contaning mercury and bacteriaes.
Zombie_Babies had it right. Let's give you a choice between a sandwhich filled with transfats, a sandwhich filled with mercury and a sandwhich filled with salmonella. You MUST choose one or Uncle Sam is going to shoot you. Which one are you going to eat? I'll answer for myself and say that I will pick the one that won't do much to me at all and go with the transfat sandwhich. I'm curious which one you will pick.
Your examples are extreme and useless in this conversation. We are talking about reglementing what corporation make and sell, like we already do now without anyone crying for the loss of freedom, not fascism.
They go together hand in hand. If you stop corporations from being able to use and sell transfats, then I cannot go to a store and buy any transfats for myself. You have taken away one of my freedoms. No thank you.
What? Both sides of reglementing what corporations make and sell? Well on one side we have public health and on the other we have the rights of corporation to produce and sell stuff. Now here we know trans fat arm people and we know that they can be replaced by less armful oils. Hmmm...
Since you are so keen on the government regulating the minutae of our health for our own good, how come you haven't suggested that the government force us to exercise for 2 hours every day? It would be more effective than anything that you have suggested so far in getting us healthy.
Slippery slop. And to continue in this logic, why not let corporations sell over the counter weapon grade plutonium?
I'm not sure what slipper slop has to do with anything other than you shouldn't step in it, but if you can't see the difference between weapon grade plutonium and salt, you're pretty far gone ;)
Then we are condamn to stagnation and paralysis. We wouldn't be able to make any discission without a dozen studies that look at every possible avenue.
LOL This is already business as usual with the State and Federal governments
Ideally we would just eat veggies, beans, nuts, rice... and meat once or twice a week. This is not realitic, at leat in our time and day. But we can improve certain aspect of our diets, by banning or reducing the quantity of some of the ingredients that are used.
Or since you are an advocate of removing our freedoms, just have the government force every man, woman and child to exercise 2 hours per day. It would be MUCH more effective.
Except cocaine ain't dangerous.
Touche.
If business want to stay legit, they'll follow regulations. Some don't but at least in theory they'll get punished once caught. This is better then letting the wolfs guard the chicken's... house of chicken.
And what about businesses that have a desire for profit that outweighs their desire to be legit? I'm sure you can think of one or two of those. ;)
Regulation for certain stuff is needed, sure. But it's not some sort of cure all, either. In the case of things that are not immediately dangerous or who's negative impact is so small it can be mitigated through other means (exercise, for example), there's really no need. Give people all of the knowledge possible to make a decision, yes. But also make sure they're allowed to make that decision.
That logic fails. If true, it would be useless to do anything.
Also, it is not like food will actually be taken out of the shelves. Replacement, safer replacements, exist.
It is useless to do anything if you expect a total solution. The point is that bans of common things do not effectively ban them. The solution isn't a solution.
And food would be taken off the shelves. Food with trans fats (or whatever other marginally dangerous substance you choose) would, by virtue of what you're suggesting, be taken from the shelves. As that's the case, we'd no longer be able to choose food with trans fats in it. Choice removed.
To illustrate: if Coke were banned for whatever reason, Pepsi could be said to be a replacement. That does nothing to change the fact that I can no longer choose to purchase Coke. Product removed, choice removed.
Like the successful regulating it was in Denmak?
The government could probably pass anything they wanted in Denmark.
Look up Prohibtion.
Look what resulted from it. (and the myriad of issues we are Still dealing with because of it)
There is no point in regulating something that isn't actually dangerous to the person ingesting it goldo. I could go grab some of that evil wicked transfat ridden food (which I'm going to be doing in a few minutes actually), eat it and not suffer for it.
We have had food loaded with this stuff for over sixty years, it hasn't been a problem. The real problem is, that our children do not do any form of activity at home or school, which is only reinforced by the Nanny Society who's too scared to let kids be kids and play. Which creates a sloth like adult later in life.
When the physical activity in America dropped, and once the "you are fine just as you are" Bs started vomiting from our televisions, the waist lines jumped outwards.
So when you're doing something that isn't physically taxing, and eating over your daily limit of calories, it's no small wonder we have an obesity problem.
See, what we need to do is attach all TVs and PCs to bicycle machines where if you don't maintain a set calories/hour it turns off.
Even simpler: make them muscle-operated power generators. Cheap energy to boot!
- If this is used by both the fit and the unfit, then the unfit will just give up because they can't sustain it. So you have to have a curve allowing them to get a start and just adjust the difficulty/whatever needed over time.
- I'm not sure on the math, but I'm not sure even someone that's reasonably fit could maintain the power needed to run a modern gaming PC, monitor, peripheral devices, speakers and so-on for a decent length of time. I might be wrong on this point as it's not my field at all, but that's what my gut is telling me.
You could have it assissted, so the energy you generate helps, but I don't think it'd be practical to fully support the electronic devices with the power you generate for two reasons:But yeah, definitely use the power it generates, but I don't think it would work to rely on it exclusively.
- If this is used by both the fit and the unfit, then the unfit will just give up because they can't sustain it. So you have to have a curve allowing them to get a start and just adjust the difficulty/whatever needed over time.
- I'm not sure on the math, but I'm not sure even someone that's reasonably fit could maintain the power needed to run a modern gaming PC, monitor, peripheral devices, speakers and so-on for a decent length of time. I might be wrong on this point as it's not my field at all, but that's what my gut is telling me.
GASP. But that would mean people would have to.... have to.... GO OUTSIDE for entertainment. D:
Egads!