Send Us Hatemail ! mailbag@conservativecave.com
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nuclear Unicorn (6,220 posts) Instead of regulating everyone's sugar intakeLast edited Thu Feb 28, 2013, 04:59 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Perhaps there should be laws against specific actions. Kind of like how we don't have laws against alcohol but we do have laws against driving drunk or beating your family in a liquor-fueled rage. Everybody that can enjoy themselves responsibly are left in peace to spend their time as they see fit. As the debate progresses I keep hearing how obesity is one of the reasons Bloomberg is such a political genius. So I propose that instead of banning the size of a soda we regulate the bad behavior the same as we regulate against drunk drivers. We don't have t legislate against a pitcher of soda any more than we have to regulate against a pitcher of beer. All we need to do is outlaw obesity. If someone is for regulating soda but not for banning obesity I would be curious to hear the distinction. Please tell us how people are "too stupid" to make good decisions about soda so they have to be ruled like disobedient children refusing to eat their broccoli but those whom the law supposedly is meant to target, i.e. the obese, should not face more direct intervention. If the law is supposed to compel people to do things for their own good then why not go directly to those who have the obvious problem?
Yeah they say we are too stupid to regulate our own sugar in our diets and that big government needs to set diets for us. You know what DUmmies? My body my choice only no one dies when I make my choice.
Ban being overweight? Most of the DUmmies would be in violation of the law.Cindie
Don't just read the OP here, go see the rest of the thread.She kicked a hornets nest but was standing there with a giant swatter.
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #62)Thu Feb 28, 2013, 06:43 PM thucythucy (1,052 posts) 75. So buying two smaller cups of sodainstead of one gigantic one is really going to wreck your whole day? Really, this is your line in the sand? "You'll have to pry my supersized cup of high fructose corn syrup out of my cold dead hands." If this regulation proves too onerous I'm sure the voters of New York City will make their outrage (OUTRAGE, I TELL YA!!!) known. In the meantime, it'll be interesting to see if this actually has an effect on reducing obesity, especially in children.
Response to thucythucy (Reply #75)Thu Feb 28, 2013, 06:51 PMNuclear Unicorn (6,220 posts) 80. Suppose someone decides to flaunt the banWill the pro-soda regulators display their outrage (OUTRAGE, I TELL YA!!!) and demand the offender(s) be hauled before the magistrate? What is your line in the sand?
Response to thucythucy (Reply #75)Thu Feb 28, 2013, 06:51 PMNuclear Unicorn (6,220 posts) 80. Suppose someone decides to flaunt the banWill the pro-soda regulators display their outrage (OUTRAGE, I TELL YA!!!) and demand the offender(s) be hauled before the magistrate?
What is your line in the sand?
Response to randome (Reply #51)Thu Feb 28, 2013, 06:08 PMNuclear Unicorn (6,224 posts) 58. What message is that? That as soon as someone pretends to have aa sufficiently moral cause they can invade everyone's life in the name of the public good? What are the odds of something like that ever becoming abused?
Nuclear Unicorn (6,224 posts) 93. Science also proves power is always abused when powerholders treat people as subjectsto be ruled. Always. Every time. Without exception. 100%.
Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #93)Thu Feb 28, 2013, 08:09 PM Democracyinkind (2,080 posts) 107. I think you should reexamine your notions about science. nt
LResponse to Democracyinkind (Reply #107)Fri Mar 1, 2013, 07:16 AMNuclear Unicorn (6,224 posts) 138. I think people should reexamine their notions about government n/t
That KittyWampus is a busybody fussbudget. She thinks this soda regulation is "helping people."
grantcart (38,360 posts) 64. We are in a war against the pancreas and I say we should not stop until every one of usneeds insulin.
Nuclear Unicorn (6,253 posts) 67. The war is over -- if you want.
Silver Swan (889 posts) 110. I never drink sugary sodaI am not a big eater of any sweet foods. But I am still obese. (I wasn't always this way, but after fifty years of trying to be un-fat, I have somewhat given up. Not to mention that as a breast cancer survivor, the medication I have to take long term seems to cause weight gain, and joint pain so severe that exercise is intolerable...) To label "the obese" a problem means that I am not supposed to exist. That sort of eliminationist thinking is frightening
Nuclear Unicorn (6,253 posts) 152. "Eliminationist" is a bit overwrought.I'm reassured repeatedly by the pro-regulators that, while they have decreed sugar to be a problem, they have no intention of eliminating it. As their words are not to be seen as eliminationist I see no reason mine should either. However, I do think you'd be safer in my camp than their's as I prefer to see you as a person possessed of freedom and personal value. They're the ones running around decreeing obesity is a drain on public resources and a social ill that only the power of law can remedy. I care for none of that. You as a person are more important than me running around acting like a legislative superhero.
KansDem (23,969 posts) 181. Perhaps a look at a report by DemocracyNow! this morning might shed some lightQuoteCorporations decide what you put in your mouth. But then, that's better than Government! Food companies have known for decades that salt, sugar and fat are not good for us in the quantities Americans consume them. But every year, people are swayed to ingest about twice the recommended amount of salt and fat — and an estimated 70 pounds of sugar. We speak with New York Times reporter Michael Moss about how in his new book, "Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us." In a multi-year investigation, Moss explores deep inside the laboratories where food scientists calculate the “bliss point†of sugary drinks or the "mouth feel" of fat, and use advanced technology to make it irresistible and addictive. As a result of this $1 trillion-a-year industry, one-in-three adults, and one-in-five children, are now clinically obese. (Transcript to come. Check back soon.) Filed under Food, Corporate Power, Michael Moss Guest:Michael Moss, investigative reporter with The New York Times and author of the new book, "Salt, Sugar, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us." His cover story, "The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food," led last weekend’s Times Sunday magazine. He won the Pulitzer Prize in 2010 for his investigation into the dangers of contaminated meat. http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/1/salt_sugar_fat_ny_times_reporter "What therefore Corporations hath joined together, let not Government put asunder."
Corporations decide what you put in your mouth. But then, that's better than Government! Food companies have known for decades that salt, sugar and fat are not good for us in the quantities Americans consume them. But every year, people are swayed to ingest about twice the recommended amount of salt and fat — and an estimated 70 pounds of sugar. We speak with New York Times reporter Michael Moss about how in his new book, "Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us." In a multi-year investigation, Moss explores deep inside the laboratories where food scientists calculate the “bliss point†of sugary drinks or the "mouth feel" of fat, and use advanced technology to make it irresistible and addictive. As a result of this $1 trillion-a-year industry, one-in-three adults, and one-in-five children, are now clinically obese. (Transcript to come. Check back soon.) Filed under Food, Corporate Power, Michael Moss Guest:Michael Moss, investigative reporter with The New York Times and author of the new book, "Salt, Sugar, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us." His cover story, "The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food," led last weekend’s Times Sunday magazine. He won the Pulitzer Prize in 2010 for his investigation into the dangers of contaminated meat. http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/1/salt_sugar_fat_ny_times_reporter
Nuclear Unicorn (6,253 posts) 187. Please, show us on this doll, where the bad corporation touched you
Plenty of people choose to NOT over-indulge in salt, sugar and fat. In other words, they are capable of governing themselves. And as soon as you tell the corporations what they can't sell they will switch what they can sell. They aren't going to stop chasing power and money, they will beat a path straight to the power and money that has been legislated. The government won't pull corporations asunder, it will serve up markets dictated by law (kinda like how we have all been herded by law into the pockets of the health insurance corporations).
mainer (6,287 posts) 117. No one's regulating quantity of sodaYou can buy as much soda as you want. You just can't buy it in 44 ounce containers. Most bartenders aren't going to hand you a 32-oz martini, either.
Nuclear Unicorn (6,253 posts) 141. How many people become mentally and physically impaired by a 44 oz soda?
mainer (6,287 posts) 197. How hard is it to buy two drinks instead of one?Or to just walk around the corner to the grocery store and pick up a case of soda?
Nuclear Unicorn (6,253 posts) 201. How hard is it to not pass absurd, pointless laws that only make government more invasive?My hubby, bless his heart, was once confronted with the saying, "It takes fewer muscles to smile than it does to frown." To wit he replied, "It takes even fewer muscles to STFU." I suppose he had a point, now that I'm confronted by those who think they're entitled to impose on others based on their self-appointed assumption they know better.
mainer (6,287 posts) 202. Then make government totally noninvasive and ban government-funded healthcareThe true libertarian would agree that if we ban all regulations, then we should also ban government support and infrastructure. But that's not the way it works, is it? We all want our health care paid for, but we don't want the government advising us that it's not good for us to eat and drink ourselves sick.
Nuclear Unicorn (6,253 posts) 206. You're really comparing a highway and firefighters to regulations on soda?And what about all the posts in this thread bemoaning the evils of corporations. Time and again I have pointed out, without rebuttal, that the corporations will follow the money. If corporations sell A, B and C but the government dictates regulations on A with the intent of curtailing it then the corporations will shift to selling B and C (or A 2.0 or D). They will have their coin. In fact those who sell B and C are probably lobbying to have A regulated out of business on their behalf. When government and corporations become seamless it is called fascism. And yet, here we are begging for fascism in its purest sense -- and its worst sense. You want healthcare? Did you get it or did you get a mandate to stand in line at the local corporate insurance office? Do you think those who gave us that debacle will have the credibility or the intestinal fortitude to resist the corporations and give us single-payer or medicare for all? Consider the separation of church and state. Why? Is it because churchmen corrupt government or because government uses religion for its own corrupted ends? Or both? How many times will we replay the same sad, sickening farce while telling ourselves it'll be different this time? You cannot stop power-mongers from seeking power. If you collect all the power in one place that is the one place they will go. Those who run abusinve corporations will not cease to exist because of a pointless, ridiculous little soda regulation. They just get to refine their marketing targets now that the competition is being legislated away. You aren't legislating government advice. Advice does not have the power to fine, seize, arrest and imprison -- which is exactly what will happen if a vendor defies the law.
mainer (6,287 posts) 208. You're the one who wants government out of your life.I say, go for it. Don't buckle your seatbelt, defund the FAA, FDA, and all those evil regulatory agencies that strive to keep us healthy and safe. No regulations at all seems to be your mantra, including this little NYC regulation that means you have to buy two sodas instead of one. Gasp! Wow, if THIS is what makes people scream "Give me liberty or give me death!" then we really do have too much time on our hands.
Nuclear Unicorn (6,253 posts) 210. So what your saying is if someone says"Keep government out of our bedrooms!" they're the political equivalent of libertarian anarchists? It's an all or nothing equation?
Scratch a liberal, get a fascist racist.
Nuclear Unicorn (6,258 posts) 89. bad = bad. Why draw a false distinction?If you're going to meddle in people's lives for their own good because it is assumed they can't do better on their own then why stop at just sugar? Let's look at everything that can leave someone ata statisitical disadvantage: sugar, vehicle exhaust, second-hand smoke, single-parent households... I do not want to set-up a regime of government that allows the worst sort of meddling to be prepetrated by those pretending to have the best of intentions. It is not a question of "if" power becomes exploited and abused, only "when." The best safeguard is to keep that much power out of the hands of those who can use the law and the courts and the police to make us miserable. If someone is foolish enough to say, "We have no reason to fear some sort of Pat Robertson figure gaining too much power; this is America!" Then ask, "So why do you know the name Pat Robertson?"
